Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
US economy is producing better jobs
The Christian Science Monitor reports some good news:
The US economy isn’t just producing jobs these days, it’s also producing good jobs. Alongside the ads for jobs handling a cash register or a spatula are these new opportunities:
• In St. Louis, AFB International is enlisting both technicians, paid $30,000 to $40,000, and PhD scientists, offered $80,000 to $100,000, in its quest for the perfect pet food.
• In Delaware, Honeywell plans to hire people at $40,000 to $100,000 to work in a data-storage center.
• In southern California, some of the latest openings involve working on the railroad, for $35,000 to $70,000 a year. Union Pacific plans to add 2,000 employees altogether.
These reports in the past month symbolize a welcome trend during an economic expansion that at first offered only tepid job gains, both in quantity and quality.
This good news about the breadth of job creation comes against a backdrop of labor-market anxiety that has persisted despite the economy’s solid overall footing. Competition from imported goods, the threat of outsourcing services abroad, and a controversial influx of illegal laborers are just some of the forces that make many workers worried about their future.
Creating good jobs – the kinds that can keep American living standards rising – appears likely to remain a challenge. But the current employment picture at least indicates movement in a positive direction.
“We’re creating lots of all kinds of jobs, across many industries, occupations, and pay scales,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. But he adds: “If your skill sets are rusty, or at the low end of the skill range, you’re going to have a tougher time.”
The economy added 211,000 jobs in March, according to a Labor Department report Friday – a solid showing about on par with expectations. The unemployment rate fell a notch, to 4.7 percent.
The new jobs still include plenty at the low end: An analysis by Merrill Lynch finds that some 40 percent of the net gain in March came in two areas known for low pay: retail services and leisure/hospitality, which includes restaurants.
But this is just part of a broader tapestry. Management and professional occupations are employing 1.2 million more people this month than a year ago – or about 1 in 3 new jobs in America. This is the highest-paying of five broad categories tracked by the Labor Department. Not all of them are CEOs or engineers, but the median paycheck for full-time workers in this category is $937 a week, far above the US median of $651.
Excellent.
Now, somebody needs to tell Senator Hillary Clinton.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
8 Responses to “US economy is producing better jobs”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
At the bottom of the Bloomberg.com story on Hillary Clinton the writer has an email address listed: hprzybyla@bloomberg.net
The writer gave this much space ” ” to Scott McClellan who said, “`Are we going to make tax cuts permanent and keep taxes low to keep our economy growing, or are we going to let Democrats have their way.”
Do any of you know what percentage of Democrats would raise taxes? I put that number at above 90% of House Democrats and 90% of Senate Democrats. Do any of you know who would be in charge of the House Ways and Means Committe if the Democrats won a majority in the House? Charles Rangel His record on voting for tax increases is horrendous. Why is this important? Because what happens to an economy when taxes are raised. People and businesses have less money to spend. When people and businesses have less money to spend they spend less. That means that less goods and services need to be produced because people aren’t buying as much goods and services. When less goods and services are produced less people need to be employed. When less people need to be imployed there is less hiring and or lay offs. When people are laid off they are dependant on the government for more services. Then the government can justify needing to raise more taxes to provide more services to people.
I’m not saying gloom and doom if taxes are raised. The effect on the economy is always dependant on the size of the tax rate hikes. It could be that the economy was going to grow at 3.5% and create 2.2 million more jobs in a year and yet it only does so at 2% and 1 million new jobs. But generally Democrats have a hard time saying no to new taxes and new taxes cause more misery and hardship for which they can act like they “care” and give those who are dependant more government services.
But if they really “cared” they’d let people succeed and stop taking so much from people who work hard to provide for their families like myself. Government services should be given tho those who are not able-bodied or elderly. Spend the rest of the money on things like infrastructure , national defense, law and order.
Anything that the government spends money on the money is spent really inefficiently. Welfare recipients receive 28 cents out of the welfare dollar. Social benefits in general have an abysmal record for cents out of the dollar getting to the recipient. Less than 25 cents. It is immoral to setup a system that’ll cost EVERYONE more money. Because market forces have been taken out of the health care system prices keep skyrocketing.
Hillary in the linked article kept referring to health care but she has the exact wrong solutions. We need to inject more market forces back into the health care system to fix the problem of cost and then only provide for people who are not able-bodied.
State workers here in CA have seen their share of health premiums go from $10 per month to $30 per month and they’ve marched and protested about it. But the state is picking up 90% of the health premium. Sure, it used to be that state workers saw no premium because the state pickedup 100%. Also now things have changed so that they have copays when they visit the doctor. And guess what? They complain about that too. But when you have a system where health care can be provided to a PERSON for almost NO cost it only ends up increasing costs as walking into the doctors office for a cold is no problem.
It used to be that health insurance was thought of as being needed for catastrophic circumstances decades ago. Premiums would fund payouts to a beneficiary if an accident happened (broken leg, large cut, etc). If people needed normal everyday care or medicine people didn’t expect that their money would be funneled through an insurance company (only to cost them more in the end) to be paid by the insurance company. What are people thinking? ?????
Doctors don’t work for free. Neither do nurses. Neither do insurance companies and the myriads of employees.
National Health care is not the answer either. You see the rationing in Canada and in England. Why the rationing? Because there are no market forces. People are disallowed from purchasing their own care so it’s sort of like health care like the DMV. Which in CA is pitifully slow.
One more thing. Hillary would do wonders towards solving the health care problem if she got behind solving the illegal immigration problem.
She will always be remembered for what she didn’t do during this time frame in our country. This is a time when anyone who isn’t working towards solving the illegal immigration problem will be rewarded with less votes in November.
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent piece today that concerns France
In it is this sentence, “In France not a single enterprise founded in the past 40 years has managed to break into the ranks of the nation’s 25 biggest companies.”
It’s what you get with government control like France’s. No opportunity. Mediocrity. 23% unemployment for men under 26 years of age. 10% unemployment in general.
Gotta love this line, “Yes, the old should be protected from precariousness because they are exhausted; the sick, because they are too weak. But privileged students under the age of 26? They cannot endure 24 months of precariousness at the prime of life, the height of their energy?”
French man and height of their energy in the same sentence?
Charles that was classic.
The medium income under bush’s watch has gone from $44,500 to $42,500. The only reason that the capitalists are creating “better” paying jobs now is because November is not far off. I predict that the system France enjoys today will be enjoyed by Americans within 10 years. And we American’s will be the better off for the change. Peace
What has the median income in France done in the last 5 years?
Don’t be negligent. Do the due diligence and find out.
The system France “enjoys” causes 23% unemployment for people under 26 and 10% unemployment for the general public. The system France “enjoy’s” has thousands of cars burning for 3 weeks (destroying the environment) and causing misery that makes for people in France killing each other during protests (yes this happened).
We Americans should and will fight the misery that liberals want to cause with their misguided and “caring” policy/solutions. Due to liberals inability to reason is this fight. Reading comprehension problems and illogic is the scurge of liberalism. Econmic illiteracy is dangerous. Liberals calling names because they don’t think conservatives or “capitalists” “care” does harm to the debate and harm to people who need solutions.
Moron! You are not an American. And change is all you get, when you’re squattin on city sidewalks. Pizza twinkies.
“The only reason that the capitalists are creating “better” paying jobs now is because November is not far off”…Steve, Steve, Steve. Do you actually think that the Union Pacific is going out and hiring thousands of people because they want to ensure a Republican electoral victory? Might not it rather have something to do with rapidly-growing rail traffic needing more people to move it (coupled with a wave of retirements among older railroaders)?
Similarly for the other companies mentioned.