Harry Krause wrote:


Prediction, little or no change in the unemployment rate and the
addition of some low-paying jobs most beloved by Republicans.

Prediction, you will remain a democratic liberal whore, whose sphere of
influence remains a boating newsgroup on usenet.

-- Charlie

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:35:57 -0500, Charles
wrote:



WaIIy wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:23:26 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

The unemployment rate in the six-county Rochester area jumped to 7
percent, representing about 39,600 people looking for work, according to
statistics released Wednesday by the state Department of Labor.


Gee, Rochester is a one industry town. Kodak was slow to respond and is
going down the ****ter.
I'm surprised the rate isn't 40% there.

Precisely. I have a friend who works for Fuji and he says Kodak did not
think digital photography would have the impact it has, and did not
aggressively pursue it.

You can't blame Bush for poor corporate decisions. Kodak missed the boat
and has let its competition pass it by.

-- Charlie

Charlie, what does your friend think of the new Fuji Digital SLR
camera? (FinePix S3 Pro)

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Not so -- at it's highest employment, Kodak had about 15% of the jobs in
Rochester.

Rochester is also the home of Xerox, B&L, Paycheck, Gleason works
(gears) GM (Delco and Roch Carbs (now renamed)), Case Hoyt (printing)
and several smaller printers. Hickey Freeman (clothing) ANd Corning
build (and quickly sold) a fiber optics plant. Perhaps other locals can
add more

All fed by hundreds of small machine/job shops

I believe the biggest employer today is Strong health Care, followed by
Wegmans (regional supermarket chain)

WaIIy wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:23:26 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:


The unemployment rate in the six-county Rochester area jumped to 7
percent, representing about 39,600 people looking for work, according to
statistics released Wednesday by the state Department of Labor.



Gee, Rochester is a one industry town. Kodak was slow to respond and is
going down the ****ter.
I'm surprised the rate isn't 40% there.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:23:26 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

The unemployment rate in the six-county Rochester area jumped to 7
percent, representing about 39,600 people looking for work, according
to
statistics released Wednesday by the state Department of Labor.


Gee, Rochester is a one industry town. Kodak was slow to respond and is
going down the ****ter.
I'm surprised the rate isn't 40% there.

So...I suppose we jsut dispose of everyone unfortunate enough to be
stuck there?

Nope, we offer them the opportunity for an education and training for a new
job.

The liberals offer welfare. The Republicans offer a chance to better
themselves for the rest of their lives.

"Jim--" wrote in message
Nope, we offer them the opportunity for an education and training for a new
job.

The liberals offer welfare. The Republicans offer a chance to better
themselves for the rest of their lives.

How the hell are you going to do that? You rights want to cut every
program available to people who want to better themselves.

John H wrote:

Charlie, what does your friend think of the new Fuji Digital SLR
camera? (FinePix S3 Pro)

John, he says it hasn't been released yet, so he hasn't seen it yet.
He's a warehouse manager for Fuji, BTW.

-- Charlie

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.606e7062a1d4900a89f1e2a9d725c4c8@107 8496293.nulluser.com...

(March 2001...who was in the White House when the rececession began?

Bush was President for 2 months. A better question is: what policies could
Bush possible have enacted in a 2 month period that could have caused a
recession in only 2 months?

Methinks the disease was there many months before the diagnosis.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.606e7062a1d4900a89f1e2a9d725c4c8@107 8496293.nulluser.com...

the recession ended in
November 2001.*

This bears repeating. The recession ended in November 2001...which means
the economy has been improving for over 2 years.

Employment stats are a lagging indicator. We've had 8 straight months of
*GAINS* in employment. 8 months!

I don't care if the number is 1000 or 100000. Either way, more people are
working today than the month before...and the month before that...and the
month before that...dating all the way back to June 2003.

You guys were saying "3 million jobs". Then it was 2.5 million. Now it's
2.35 million. Bush could use the Dem's own ads to show the improvement in
the job market. By November, he can say: "first they said 3 million, then
2.5 million, then 2.35...and now they say 1.5 million. We've gained 1.5
million jobs in the last 16 months. Why stop now?"


When Bush puts this trend on a chart and holds it up before the American
people, the message will be "Taxes were too high before I took office, and
manufacturing started laying off people en masse starting in August 2000...5
months before I took office. My administration led the fight to cut taxes
in early 2003, and since then, we've had 16 straight months of job growth.
Why would you want John Kerry to raise your taxes and stop the growth?"

Historical data showing 16 straight months of job growth will completely
destroy the argument that we're on the wrong track economically. Only a
fool would make such an assertion.

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.606e7062a1d4900a89f1e2a9d725c4c8@107 8496293.nulluser.com...

the recession ended in
November 2001.*

This bears repeating. The recession ended in November 2001...which means
the economy has been improving for over 2 years.

Employment stats are a lagging indicator. We've had 8 straight months of
*GAINS* in employment. 8 months!

I don't care if the number is 1000 or 100000. Either way, more people are
working today than the month before...and the month before that...and the
month before that...dating all the way back to June 2003.

You guys were saying "3 million jobs". Then it was 2.5 million. Now it's
2.35 million. Bush could use the Dem's own ads to show the improvement in
the job market. By November, he can say: "first they said 3 million, then
2.5 million, then 2.35...and now they say 1.5 million. We've gained 1.5
million jobs in the last 16 months. Why stop now?"


When Bush puts this trend on a chart and holds it up before the American
people, the message will be "Taxes were too high before I took office, and
manufacturing started laying off people en masse starting in August
2000...5
months before I took office. My administration led the fight to cut taxes
in early 2003, and since then, we've had 16 straight months of job growth.
Why would you want John Kerry to raise your taxes and stop the growth?"

Historical data showing 16 straight months of job growth will completely
destroy the argument that we're on the wrong track economically. Only a
fool would make such an assertion.

Dr. Tooth,

I will add that I have two sons seeking work right now. So far I can't fault
the effort they are putting into their search. The pickings seem pretty
lean. Tell me again, where are all these jobs you are crowing about?

Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists returning to the job market
when the come back from the big sandbox?

After you answer that, tell me what will happen when this years crop of
graduates hits the streets and can't find meaningful jobs?

Since you are such a wiz with figures, how much of this spectacular growth
has anything to do with little Bushes tax cuts, and how much is due to the
unusually low interest rates?

I was just reading how the American population is borrowing money to finance
their purchases at a rate never seen before. Much of this is borrowing on
the inflated values of homes combined with low interest rates; this is a
one-time trick and I don't expect to see it repeated. The rest is massive
credit card debt. At some point this personal debt load will choke personal
finances to the point where the average consumer simply can't take on
additional debt. When these people stop living beyond their means and start
to simple survive while they service the debt they have taken on, they won't
buy as much as they do now. What do you have to say about this potential
blot you your rosy view of the future growth?

For the 10 point extra credit, what will happen when the interest rates
start to come back up? Address home sales, big ticket sales, and corporate
investments.

Mark Browne
PS - You see the glass as half full, I see that little Bush has been peeing
in it!

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:01:11 GMT, "Mark Browne"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.606e7062a1d4900a89f1e2a9d725c4c8@107 8496293.nulluser.com...

the recession ended in
November 2001.*

This bears repeating. The recession ended in November 2001...which means
the economy has been improving for over 2 years.

Employment stats are a lagging indicator. We've had 8 straight months of
*GAINS* in employment. 8 months!

I don't care if the number is 1000 or 100000. Either way, more people are
working today than the month before...and the month before that...and the
month before that...dating all the way back to June 2003.

You guys were saying "3 million jobs". Then it was 2.5 million. Now it's
2.35 million. Bush could use the Dem's own ads to show the improvement in
the job market. By November, he can say: "first they said 3 million, then
2.5 million, then 2.35...and now they say 1.5 million. We've gained 1.5
million jobs in the last 16 months. Why stop now?"


When Bush puts this trend on a chart and holds it up before the American
people, the message will be "Taxes were too high before I took office, and
manufacturing started laying off people en masse starting in August
2000...5
months before I took office. My administration led the fight to cut taxes
in early 2003, and since then, we've had 16 straight months of job growth.
Why would you want John Kerry to raise your taxes and stop the growth?"

Historical data showing 16 straight months of job growth will completely
destroy the argument that we're on the wrong track economically. Only a
fool would make such an assertion.

Dr. Tooth,
snipped

Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists returning to the job market
when the come back from the big sandbox?

snipped

Just to answer one of your comments - you may be interested in the
following excerpt:

Employment and Reemployment Rights


The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(USERRA), enacted October 13, 1994 (Title 38 U.S. Code, Chapter 43,
Sections 4301-4333, Public Law 103-353), significantly strengthens and
expands the employment and reemployment rights of all uniformed
service members.

Who's eligible for reemployment?

"Service in the uniformed services" and "uniformed services" defined
-- (38 U.S.C. Section 4303 (13 & 16)

Reemployment rights extend to persons who have been absent from a
position of employment because of "service in the uniformed services."
"Service in the uniformed services" means the performance of duty on a
voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed service, including:

· Active duty

· Active duty for training

· Initial active duty for training

· Inactive duty training

· Full-time National Guard duty.

· Absence from work for an examination to determine a person's
fitness for any of the above types of duty.


· Funeral honors duty performed by National Guard or reserve
members.

· Duty performed by intermittent disaster response personnel for
the Public Health Service, and approved training to prepare for such
service (added by Pub. L. 107-188, June 2002). See Title 42, U.S.
Code, section 300hh-11(e).

For more info, go to:
http://www.dol.gov/vets/whatsnew/userraguide0903.rtf




John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!