Let the good times roll! -- 337,000 new jobs in October

[Ned]

el freako, perhaps this anti-family values attitude is more apparent in France and other Continental countries than England. I refer to the recent flap over the Italian catholic who wanted to be EU justice mininister. A major reason he was rejected was because he was in favor of "family values." I was told by Spiffor that in the EU, families mean that anyone can raise children, single mothers, gays, anyone; and within the man-woman family, it is understood that the father can stay at home and the mother be the breadwinner. To me, these concepts are the antithesis of family values.

I have also been told that increasingly, the very concept of marriage is losing favor on the continent as couples simply live together and have children. I presume this allows either party to depart at any time without legal entanglements as it is presumed that both parties have careers.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
I refer to the recent flap over the Italian catholic who wanted to be EU justice mininister. A major reason he was rejected was because he was in favor of "family values."

He was rejected because he said homosexuality was a sin, and that women should be at home having babies and not pursuing careers.

[Velociryx]

Maybe I'm slow on account of the meds, but let me see if I get this:

Lots of jobs got created last month (good thing)

Because of this, all the scads of people who had previously been out of work start looking again, and despite the fact that nearly half a mil got hired, unemployment went UP slightly (bad thing)

On balance, I'd say the Fundiepublican gets a , true?

I mean, unemployment still nosed up, signifying that while some decent jobs got created (and you have to understand that the nearly half mil number also includes lots of temp work and McJobs), on balance, it wasn't enough to actually get the unemployment rate to go DOWN (which, I presume, is the goal, yes, and the mark of a HEALTHY, growing economy?

-=Vel=-

[el freako]

Originally posted by Ned
I refer to the recent flap over the Italian catholic who wanted to be EU justice mininister. A major reason he was rejected was because he was in favor of "family values."

Originally posted by Dauphin
He was rejected because he said homosexuality was a sin, and that women should be at home having babies and not pursuing careers.

Also in the past he has used his position not only to consider homosexuality a sin (which is fair enough, he's entitled to his beliefs) but also to make life much more difficult for them (which, as proposed commissioner for Justice is totally out of order).

Basically he was against women working and for the persecution of homosexuals.

So, Ned, are these the 'family values' that you espouse then?
And you still havn't answered me about how 'Fatherhood' is being denigrated.

[Velociryx]

Did I kill this thread?

-=Vel=-

[DanS]

The beauty of this thread is that can be resurrected, at my discretion, every month. Ever read Ubik?

[Ned]

Originally posted by el freako




Also in the past he has used his position not only to consider homosexuality a sin (which is fair enough, he's entitled to his beliefs) but also to make life much more difficult for them (which, as proposed commissioner for Justice is totally out of order).

Basically he was against women working and for the persecution of homosexuals.

So, Ned, are these the 'family values' that you espouse then?
And you still havn't answered me about how 'Fatherhood' is being denigrated.

The original story was quite a bit different on the issue of family. What appears in the above statement by Dauphin bears no resemblence to the news report.

How do we resolve these differences. Do you have a link to the quote about the role of women as the quote I saw talked about the role of men.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Ned

The original story was quite a bit different on the issue of family. What appears in the above statement by Dauphin bears no resemblence to the news report.

Here is a link to an article in The Economist

Here is the most damming paragraph:

After being made (Italy's) Europe minister in 2001, Mr Buttiglione astonished colleagues with a string of demands that went far beyond his remit. Within days, he had called for a ban on artificial insemination, for state funding for private (religious) schools and for payments to women who rejected abortions.

Originally posted by DanS
We're still revising our productivity figures going 5 years back.

As GDP has not been revised for 5 years ago do you mean that employment or hour worked has been?
If neither of those have been revised how can productivity be revised (hours? change in share of non-farm private sector?) and anyway unless GDP has been changed then productivty growth remains at around 2% a year for GDP per hour worked in the whole economy.
So, with the workforce expanding at around 1% a year (although this year it looks like only managing half that) the US's long-term rate of growth is 3% a year, down from 3.5% in the 1996-2000 period (when the workforce grew by 1.5% a year).

[Dauphin]

BTW, you will need a subscription.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
The real problem with America from the left's point of view is that it has too many wealthy people who do nothing. This, in their view and as express so recently by Al Gore, is cruel and demands action like increasing estate taxes and perhaps even direct action such as wealth reduction ala Robin Hood or, better, Stalin.

I actually agree that people who do nothing and are wealthy should be profoundly taxed. Every cent we take from them is a cent we don't have to take from productive people. Why do you seem to think that heavy taxation of non productive wealthy people is worse than any taxation of productive people?


Taxes
estate taxes
dividend taxes
payroll taxes

[Kidlicious]

If they worked so much then they wouldn't want work to be taxed so much. Since they get most of their income from non-work sources that's not the case.

[Odin]

Most of these new jobs are McJobs. The republicans want to go back to the way the economy was in the 20's, and we all know what happened in 1929. It took LIBERALS to make sure the Great Depression never happened again.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Odin
Most of these new jobs are McJobs. The republicans want to go back to the way the economy was in the 20's, and we all know what happened in 1929. It took LIBERALS to make sure the Great Depression never happened again.

I've asked you before, but cite? And I mean like the DOL or something, not some editorial column.

[pchang]

The McJobs assertion was effectively dispelled by an earlier post.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
The McJobs assertion was effectively dispelled by an earlier post.

no it was not. PLATO pointed out that about 100,000 of these jobs were in relatively well paying fields. Fine- that leaves 300,000 jobs to account for then. And that does not answer the question of the numbers of well paying jobs lost vs well paying jobs gained.