Well, maybe it doesn't.
Comparing Economies: Two Respected Measures Put Bush 43's at or Near the Top | NewsBusters.orgUnemployment's so low in our area that about one out of four fast-food places has a sign up for 'Help Wanted'. Most of the larger retail establishments are hiring, by the signs on their doors. Heck, even MicroCenter's hiring.Comparing Economies: Two Respected Measures Put Bush 43's at or Near the Top
Today's release of the Institute for Supply Management's Non-Manufacturing Activity Report, which measures business conditions in the 86% of the economy other than manufacturing, came in with a reading of 60.7, after recording a 59.7 last month.
As has been customary, the report whipped the pants off of "expectations." This Thomson Financial article at Forbes predicted a decline to 58.1 instead of the full-point increase that occurred, as did this AFX piece.
That they can't fill these jobs means one of two things... either the pay is so low that folks won't work for it (and when you can't find workers your choice is usually to pay more until you DO find someone) or there's just not sufficient warm bodies out there to fill the positions.
Interesting, isn't it?
J.
Comments (4)
Yes, it is would seem as though employment were full, so to speak. Notice another thing? You haven't heard a word about it!
Hmm. I just thought of one more thing. It would appear as though Americans ARE willing to do THOSE jobs! Whadda know...
Posted by Rosemary | July 6, 2007 1:36 PM
Posted on July 6, 2007 13:36
Well, Rosemary, it doesn't fit the script of it being the "Worst Economy Evarrr" - oh, wait. They used that back when Bush and Clinton were going at it in '92 - despite the clear evidence that the economy WASN'T doing badly. They tried it again in '04, with the same results.
It's really kind of sad when folks won't bother to compare for themselves. The late '70s under Carter - THAT economy sucked. Since then? We've been doing damn well.
J.
Posted by JLawson | July 6, 2007 11:45 PM
Posted on July 6, 2007 23:45
I tend to agree. The one thing (of a few) that Nixon did that angered me was price-controls. We now have proof they do NOT work, so what do the Dems want to do? You got it.
Drugs? Price-control. Gas? Price-control. Food? Price-controls, depending on how much you donate. (Milk subsidies.) Air we breathe? Give them time. I'm sure they're working on it!
Doesn't anyone read Article I Sec. 8 anymore??? Oh, btw, that's the Constitution. Just in case someone reading this hasn't a clue! (lol)
Posted by Rosemary | July 7, 2007 3:08 AM
Posted on July 7, 2007 03:08
The things is, Rosemary, they're not concerned if price controls work or not, or what secondary effects they might have - they worry about how it SEEMS. My favorite bit is the 'Luxury Tax' of the '90s - it was actually very revenue-negative and ended up nearly killing off the small plane and light yacht industries. And the fools in Washington may be looking at it again...
US Congress may re-establish the Luxury Tax
Only the Dems would be so stupid.
J.
Posted by JLawson | July 7, 2007 8:54 AM
Posted on July 7, 2007 08:54