Bush Approval rating at new low...

[The Wicked Wop]

The point your missing THEW in all your wonderful analysis about US job losses during the tech debacle.....is that entire companies aren't made up of only hardware software people. You have operations people, you have administration people, management, etc......that help make up the 11 million jobs. You also have companies tied to other companies, that way when the tech companies got burned so did big established business that either have investment capital linked to them, leases, contracts, etc. Then you had corporate scandal kinda hard to blame Bush for the Enron's, Adelphia's, and MCI's jobs losses because the companies we so interested in keeping share prices up or management was more concerned with their extravigant life styles then taking care of their duty to manage their companies effectively......If you don't see how all this is tied together, then I suggest you get some sleep.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

I can list at least 30 people that took the chance and jumped ship from secure corporate positions for the .com bubble. Accross the board, they all regretted it now.

I am one of them, but I was lucky enough to be laid off in late 2000 so wasn't part of the mass exodus. My friend was layed off in 2001 or 2002 and just got a job 6 months ago. He was in the same position a PM job when the market was flooded with PM's. He still hasn't found the position he wants but is working. Unlike some of my other friends who are holding out for "that" job again :doh:

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by jbooma

I am one of them, but I was lucky enough to be laid off in late 2000 so wasn't part of the mass exodus. My friend was layed off in 2001 or 2002 and just got a job 6 months ago. He was in the same position a PM job when the market was flooded with PM's. He still hasn't found the position he wants but is working. Unlike some of my other friends who are holding out for "that" job again :doh:

How are you doing now? The timing was just right for you it seems.

I also have good friends who have landed new jobs in the tech fields, but you were spot on in saying that they will have a hard time getting the "primo" jobs again.

[thew]

Interesting, if they have all been in those 11 million jobs for a decade now, then how can you say that the Bush Administration lost those jobs.

Well since Bush is only down 1.5 million private sector jobs currently I don't think you can say he "lost those jobs".

Thew, are you an unemployed software designer or something? (no disrespect intended, just curious as to where your strong negativity comes from at a personal level. Helps me put your comments into context)

Nope not unemployed, at all. I've never worked for a dot come either, worked for myself for the last 12 years. I'm a business owner who is still working thanks to decades of experience. I do know that Bush's economy hasn't been good for me. Has been desasterous for many folks I know. I've known folks who couldn't find work for months and months and have sold their homes during the bush's term. I've known more than a few who've droped out of the job hunt altogether for years at a time because it's been so depressed. Know a few car salesmen and waiters who used to have real jobs too. There but for the grace of god go all of us. Country can't take 4 more years of Bush.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

How are you doing now? The timing was just right for you it seems.

I also have good friends who have landed new jobs in the tech fields, but you were spot on in saying that they will have a hard time getting the "primo" jobs again.

I am ok, landed with a secure government position for now doing web stuff but am very bored (why i post so much )

[jbooma]

Originally posted by thew

Well since Bush is only down 1.5 million private sector jobs currently I don't think you can say he "lost those jobs".

Nope not unemployed, at all. I've never worked for a dot come either, worked for myself for the last 12 years. I'm a business owner who is still working thanks to decades of experience. I do know that Bush's economy hasn't been good for me. Has been desasterous for many folks I know. I've known folks who couldn't find work for months and months and have sold their homes during the bush's term. I've known more than a few who've droped out of the job hunt altogether for years at a time because it's been so depressed. Know a few car salesmen and waiters who used to have real jobs too. There but for the grace of god go all of us. Country can't take 4 more years of Bush.

Listen to what you just said. Those layoffs were a continued mass layoff from the tech boom, how can you blame that on Bush when he wasn't in office during it. If Gore was president it would be the same number. Just like Clinton it is all based on timing. Now what you can say is how many jobs have come back the last 12 months after being in a recession that lasted into late 2002.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by jbooma

I am ok, landed with a secure government position for now doing web stuff but am very bored (why i post so much )

Funny that I work to gain efficiencies and I am the most inefficient one here when posting at Extremeskins!

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by jbooma

I am ok, landed with a secure government position for now doing web stuff but am very bored (why i post so much )

Sounds familiar.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Funny that I work to gain efficiencies and I am the most inefficient one here when posting at Extremeskins!

that is because you enjoy your work

so how did you get into it, did you study quailty assurance in school?? or just happened to fall into it?

[thew]

Wicked Wop

The point your missing THEW in all your wonderful analysis about US job losses during the tech debacle.....is that entire companies aren't made up of only hardware software people. You have operations people, you have administration people, management, etc

So your point is that the majority of folks who work at computer companies aren't in fact computer workers? By a ratio of 10 to 1?

2.4 million computer jobs before the dot com bust. 2.4 million after the dot com bust. But you think Clinton created 11 million support jobs based on the dot com bubble?

Those numbers don't add up for me. I think it much more likely that the dot com bubble which was isolated to only a few geographical areas of the country had much more to do with micro economic community problems and not the systemic macro econmic problems the econmy faces today.

The jobs the American economy lost have been tied to bad economic and trade policy from Bush and not cyclic changes in the marketplace. The fact that Bush is the first president since Hoover and the Great depression to have a net loss of jobs should tell you it's not cyclical but personal.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by thew

2.4 million computer jobs before the dot com bust. 2.4 million afte the dot com bust. But you think we lost 11 million support jobs?

So with your incredible logic there were no IT jobs then lost during the dot com bust. :doh:

[thew]

So with your incredible logic there were no IT jobs then lost during the dot com bust.

I see you can't even muster enough courage to make a logical interpretation of the numbers but rather are left to only snipe at mine.

Yes you're right. The dot com bouble was a realatively small blip on the technology industry. The increase in teh h1b visa program from around 70,000 to 200,000 a year cost many more American technology workers their jobs than the dot com bouble.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by thew

I see you can't even muster enough courage to make a logical interpretation of the numbers but rather are left to only snipe at mine.

Yes you're right. The dot com bouble was a realatively small blip on the technology industry. The increase in teh h1b visa program from around 70,000 to 200,000 a year cost many more American technology workers their jobs than the dot com bouble.

No the problem you have is you only think that the dot com layoffs dealt with IT positions. When it involved much more, including whole companies.

You also try to blame Bush for the layoffs that continued untill late 2002 because of companies that were to large to begin with. So tell me again how can he be blamed for these job losses when it was due to the large continuous trickle down of the tech boom? Please I want an honest and factual answer this time.

The Tech Boom was everywhere and everyone was affected one way or another. I would go on and say 9-11 then created even more lost jobs because of the hit that NY took. I guess you blame Bush for that as well :doh:

If you want to see proof of the result of the dotcom layoff, come here to NOVA and I will take you on a trip down the tech corridor that has all these huge dotcom buildings without the original company's in them now.

PSI, CareerBuider, Proxicom, etc... there were thousands. Yes some were still doing layoffs until 2002 I am not even including the larger companies that jumped on the bandwagon as well.

[The Wicked Wop]

The point is they were all tied into the tech boom and corporate scandal mess. The tech company I was with had over 100 people at its peak. In that number we probably had 10-15 software people, 3 to 4 harware, and 4 IT staff. Everyone else was sales (predonimately), accounting, hr, management, operations, and administration, call center.....and to be honest alot of companies in similar tech field had similar makeups.

Now I will start tying it in for you.

Part of the deal is that big business put investment money into these companies and had business deals with them.....ie hardware, software, office leases, long-term contracts etc. Well when these tech went belly up....what do you think happened to these deals......what do you think the consequences were to these big companies......who by the way were ramping up with regards to employment as well in order to meet demand.

Now take the whole Enron, MCI mess.....they laid off thousands just because they were making stuff up to appear more profitable......with alot of other companies doing the same thing, but recieving alot less attention. Kinda hard to blame Bush on this front as well.

[jbooma]

Hold on a minute here, Thew you live in Reston, so you know exactly what I am talking about, why do you even for one minute claim you don't?

How can you claim about the industry if you haven't been involved in it. In my friends company of 500 people over 200 were in sales.

[aREDSKIN]

Back to the original article that started this. A different view on things:

NYT Falls to Lowest Point

Adam "Spider" Nagourney spins the Dem cocoon.

By Mickey Kaus

Posted Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 12:34 AM PT

Spinning the Cocoon--The 13th Graf: Soxblog notes that a month ago, the CBS poll had Kerry up by 8 in a head to head with Bush (and up 6 with Nader in the race). This month, the NYT/CBS poll showed Kerry's lead had dropped to a single point in the head-to-head, and Bush was actually winning by a point with Nader included. Kerry dropped seven points in a month. So what do the Times' Nagourney and Elder lead their story with?

Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds

You don't find out until paragraph 11 that the candidates are essentially tied, and only in the 13th graf do Nagourney and Elder slip in the previous months poll results--without pointing out to readers the decline in Kerry's lead. ...

But the Times coverage isn't really that bad. It's worse! Soxblog also busts Nagourney and Elder for what appears to be dissembling. They report, in the very first sentence of their piece, that

President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

But if you look at the previous poll results listed in the Times web site, you learn that a month ago Bush's approval rating was a point lower and his disapproval rating was a point higher. Bush has actually gained in the past month. It doesn't appear to be, you know, true that his "approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency." It was worse last month. The same goes for Bush's favorability ratings, which were lower last month (36 favorable/47 unfavorable) than this month (39 favorable/45 unfavorable).

Nagourney and Elder seem to be relying on a technicality--that last month's poll was a "CBS poll" and not a "Times/CBS" poll. Note the Clintonian clause they sneak into this sentence:

he 42 percent of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job is the lowest such figure in a Times/CBS News survey since the beginning of Mr. Bush's presidency in January 2001; 51 percent say they disapprove. [Emphasis added]

But does the presence of the Times name on this month's survey reflect any difference other than who funds it? Doesn't CBS' Kathy Frankovic do the poll either way? Does she conduct the "Times/CBS poll" differently from the plain old "CBS" poll? If so, why does the Times itself list both polls in the charts of its "New York TImes/CBS News poll" on its own site? Readers are supposed to read those charts for trends, but somehow Nagouney and Elder are allowed to ignore them in order to deceptively pluck out their anti-Bush theme. ...

P.S.: Note that even the technicality doesn't really save Nagourney and Elder's first sentence, which fails to deploy the "Times/CBS" disclaimer in a legalistically-airtight way. ...

P.P.S.: Andrew Sullivan once defended Nagourney by blaming the faults in his reporting on editor Howell Raines' meddling. Well, Raines is gone, and Nagourney is still spinning the Democrats' cocoon. He's become a national embarrassment. ...

P.P.P.S.: They're tied now. Won't Kerry fall behind if Bush's favorables have in fact bottomed out? Kerry's favorables have gone downhill since last month's poll--he's now viewed unfavorably by more people (39 percent) than view him favorably (29 percent). Dem Panic anyone? ... 11:17 A.M.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103087/

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by jbooma

that is because you enjoy your work

so how did you get into it, did you study quailty assurance in school?? or just happened to fall into it?

I took Green Belt Certification through my local office, my first project trimmed a process to the order of $1M. I think they liked that so I was offered a Black Belt position in Vegas. So far it's been great and I hope what I've learned will be great resume fodder in the future!