I got a call from the Dean campaign

[SilentPanda]

I finally registered to vote a few weeks ago. And with registering came my first political phone call (I put undecided as my political party).

I was on my way to Chicago yesterday (I live in Iowa) and I got a call from the Dean campaign. They wanted me to go to the caucuss. Of course I couldn't as I was en route to Chicago... the lady on the other end of the phone was quite for Dean. Then she proceeded to tell me that Bush was a "danger to the American people". This sort of took me aback. So I replied by telling her that "I'm actually quite a fan of Bush". She responded with, "Well then I've obviously called the wrong person. Sorry." Then she hung up. She put down the President, got snippy with me (it was a very angry tone) after I told her I liked Bush, and then she hung up on me.

Is this how political phone calls go? If I was gung-ho Dean then why would she want to talk to me? Shouldn't she want to convince me that Dean is better than Bush? I'm not too sure about this whole campaign trail junk. :confused:

[G4scott]

They're trying to get the stupid and weak minded to vote for Dean. By telling lies, they make Bush seem like an evil monster, and claim that Dean is this country's savior :rolleyes:

Welcome to politics.

[zimv20]

how is 'bush is a danger to the american people' a lie?

[mactastic]

My advice is to lie to pollsters. Tell them the complete opposite of what you believe. If more of us lied to them and they wern't as accurate anymore, the polititians would have to take their own positions rather than sticking their finger in the wind every time they make a decision.

[IJ Reilly]

But this wasn't a pollster call, it was a political solicitation. I'm not a party member, but my wife is, and she made the mistake of donating to the party some years ago. So now they make some pretty aggressive telephone pitches for more money, which I find objectionable and she doesn't like either. Since political organizations have an unrestricted right to call, the only effective response I can think to use is to tell them that if they call again, that you'll not only never send them another dime, you'll make a point of voting for the other guy.

[mactastic]

Well you still have an unrestricted right to hang up on them!

Unless, of course, the Patriot Act has been modified again.;)

[SilentPanda]

It just sorta bothers me that if these are the kind of people that Dean allows to make phone calls on his behalf (albiet indirectly) what kind of ill sounding people are going to work for him. I'm already voting for Bush unless something else better turns up but man... it just got on my nerves that they would call our President who is doing a decent job (I won't say excellent but I won't say meager) of his job a "danger to the American people". :rolleyes:

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
It just sorta bothers me that if these are the kind of people that Dean allows to make phone calls on his behalf (albiet indirectly) what kind of ill sounding people are going to work for him. I'm already voting for Bush unless something else better turns up but man... it just got on my nerves that they would call our President who is doing a decent job (I won't say excellent but I won't say meager) of his job a "danger to the American people". :rolleyes:

Originally posted by zimv20

how is 'bush is a danger to the american people' a lie?

I must repeat zims question as it still has not been answered.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
I must repeat zims question as it still has not been answered.

I know it has been said many times here, but perhaps instead of asking this question flat out, it would be best to point out the ways in which Bush is a danger to the country, and then debate. I mean, what are you supposed to say to "how is Bush not a danger to the country?" other than "I don't think Bush is dangerous to this country because I haven't heard of any dangers he has caused us". Not everyone is as exposed to the relatively underground media and well articulated criticisms which convey compelling arguments as to the dangers of the Bush administration.

I don't think it's possible to answer that question until someone first outlines the ways in which Bush IS a danger. Then we can have a real debate - none of this "your a Bush supporter? You idiot!" garbage that gets tossed around here.

And besides, SilentPanda was making a great point about the tone of political solicitations - is it not possible to discuss this issue without having to jump on the poor guy because he is a Bush fan?

Let's try to be fair here.

Davis

[SilentPanda]

I'm not even necessarily a Bush fan. I'm just not seeing where he is our enemy. I don't know squat about politics. I was simply very put off by the fact that somebody from Dean's campaign made (to me) an unjustified statement that Bush was my enemy and I should detest him (part in words and part in tone). Then when I told her I had no current problems with the Bush administration she basically told me off and hung up on me. I honestly wanted to know what Dean had to offer me that Bush does not. What wrongs Dean is planning on making right. But instead I got harsh overtones along with being hung up on. To me, that's terribly immature. I tend to be a ciivl person and don't mind a civil voice. But she gave me none hence bringing her presidential candidate down in my eyes instead of lifting him up as she most likely would have wanted.

Again, I'm not "Bush or Bust". I'm simply, this brand of jam tastes fine, why should I try the other?

[IJ Reilly]

These callers think they are talking to party loyalists, and they're aiming to get them all riled up. This is how the system works, I'm afraid. It's also why I'm not a member of a party.

[SilentPanda]

Weel if she wanted me to dislike the very small portion of what I've seen of Dean's campaign (a phone call) then her message got through.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Not everyone is as exposed to the relatively underground media and well articulated criticisms which convey compelling arguments as to the dangers of the Bush administration.


most of the articles i link to come from: yahoo, NYT, CNN, Wash Post, BBC, LA Times, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times

[zimv20]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
I'm not even necessarily a Bush fan. I'm just not seeing where he is our enemy. I don't know squat about politics.

i don't say this to be mean, but you're exactly the problem. you don't know squat about politics, yet you think bush is doing a decent job.

on what are you basing that?

[Sayhey]

Silent Panda,

Sometimes in the heat of campaigns you have people working phones who have no people skills. Every campaign I've every been with gives the callers a script to work with that tries to make sure that they are polite to the people they call. I know that there are problems that take place in carrying this out, but I would like to pose another possibility. Sometimes other campaigns call people, especially folks who are "undecided" and pretend to be from another campaign in order to alienate them. I don't know if that is the case with your phone call, but it also makes no sense for the Dean campaign to be calling anyone other than registered Democrats on the eve of the caucus. Just a thought.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20
most of the articles i link to come from: yahoo, NYT, CNN, Wash Post, BBC, LA Times, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times

I respect that - I wasn't trying to imply any sort of lack of legitimacy to yours, or anyones postings or citations. But you know as well as I do that the most scathing articles that eloquently and directly describe the dangers of the Bush administration, if present in the mainstream media, are generally burried pretty deep. It would be reasonable to assume that without blaring, front page headlines detailing some of Bush's dangerous policies as consistantly as they come about, the average Joe-Watches-the Evening-News-Sometimes won't ever be subjected to the type of critcism that is being leveled against Bush on a daily basis in lesser known, lesser watched, and lesser appreciated venues.

Davis

[SilentPanda]

Originally posted by zimv20
i don't say this to be mean, but you're exactly the problem. you don't know squat about politics, yet you think bush is doing a decent job.

on what are you basing that?

I'm not basing it on much of anything. Honestly. But I haven't really disliked any of our presidents thus far... I just think she could have backed up her statement to convince me that he is indeed my enemy instead of hanging up on me. If he's not doing a good job and I don't know about it I think she should have the decency to tell me why. It's certainly not her job to keep me informed about politics but to tell me he's a danger to me and then hanging up on me doesn't sway me. If I don't care and she wants me to care she should give me reason to care. 'Cause... I don't really care.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
I just think she could have backed up her statement to convince me that he is indeed my enemy instead of hanging up on me.

i haven't said it, but i agree with you that she was rude and what she said and did was uncalled for.

i think it reflects badly on her, i'd hesitate to say it reflects badly on dean. it takes volunteers to win a campaign and i wouldn't expect too many to be turned away by any campaign.

[G4scott]

So, how is Bush a threat to our country?

I'd also say that 'dumb' voters are better than 'self proclaimed smart, know-it-all voters', because the dumb ones aren't into the conspiracy theories, and aren't blinded by the completely biased views of their party...

I think people should make themselves open to all sides, and then based on what each candidate says, they make their vote on whoever they feel will do the best job. After all, isn't that how voting is supposed to work? Vote for whomever deals with your issues best, not who can trash talk all the other guys, and not really be clear on what he wants to do...

I'm not voting for Bush because I don't want any democrats in office. I'm voting for him because his views are closest to mine.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G4scott
So, how is Bush a threat to our country?


off the top of my head...

- security concerns directed to iraq instead of securing US ports, chemical plants and nuclear plants

- rolled back environmental protections

- running huge deficits

- net job loss

- made drugs more expensive for some seniors

- overextended the military

- removed consitutional protections from some citizens


I'd also say that 'dumb' voters are better than 'self proclaimed smart, know-it-all voters', because the dumb ones aren't into the conspiracy theories, and aren't blinded by the completely biased views of their party...


oh, are you talking to me? i decide on the issues, thank you.


I'm not voting for Bush because I don't want any democrats in office. I'm voting for him because his views are closest to mine.

then you'll understand why i probably won't be voting for him

your turn -- how is bush _not_ a threat to the country?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G4scott

I'm voting for [Bush] because his views are closest to mine.

one more question for you --

in the SOTU tonight, bush claimed that jobs were being added to the economy.

now, there's still a net of 2-3 million jobs lost since he took office. tom daschle mentioned that, in december, there were 1000 net jobs added.

now that you see the numbers, do you think it's fair of bush to make the statement he did? is it at all misleading? and if not, are these the sort of views to which you personally adhere?

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by zimv20
one more question for you --

in the SOTU tonight, bush claimed that jobs were being added to the economy.

now, there's still a net of 2-3 million jobs lost since he took office. tom daschle mentioned that, in december, there were 1000 net jobs added.

now that you see the numbers, do you think it's fair of bush to make the statement he did? is it at all misleading? and if not, are these the sort of views to which you personally adhere?

Sort of off topic, but it reminds me a bit of gas prices. When the oil companies want to raise the price of gasoline, they usually make the prices a LOT higher and people get angry. So lets say gas went from $1.50 a gallon to $2.00 (numbers used just for an example). After the $2.00 price has been around for a month or two, the price is lowered to $1.75 and everyone is overjoyed. But really the companies jacked up prices by $0.25 and are claiming they just cut them. Sad thing is, like Bush's claim of jobs being added, many people buy into this when if you would stop and think for a moment, your common sense would tell you otherwise.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
one more question for you --

in the SOTU tonight, bush claimed that jobs were being added to the economy.

now, there's still a net of 2-3 million jobs lost since he took office. tom daschle mentioned that, in december, there were 1000 net jobs added.

now that you see the numbers, do you think it's fair of bush to make the statement he did? is it at all misleading? and if not, are these the sort of views to which you personally adhere?

I think he was refering to the unemployment numbers.

http://66.216.126.164/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzchart200401200852.asp

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
Is this how political phone calls go? If I was gung-ho Dean then why would she want to talk to me?

Ever think she just had the wrong number/person?

[SilentPanda]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Ever think she just had the wrong number/person?

Well she called my phone number and addressed me by name first and last (and my last name ain't Johnson). So I'm assuming she had the right person. I had just registered to vote a week or so prior. So all my info is current and this has been my phone number for a good 2 to 3 years now.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
I'm not basing it on much of anything. Honestly. But I haven't really disliked any of our presidents thus far... I just think she could have backed up her statement to convince me that he is indeed my enemy instead of hanging up on me. If he's not doing a good job and I don't know about it I think she should have the decency to tell me why. It's certainly not her job to keep me informed about politics but to tell me he's a danger to me and then hanging up on me doesn't sway me. If I don't care and she wants me to care she should give me reason to care. 'Cause... I don't really care.

I think you have a misunderstanding about what these types of phone calls are supposed to be about. They are about voter ID not about calling up people and having a long discussion on issues. What a campaign wants to know is if you are committed to a candidate (hopefully theirs) or if you are persuadable. If you fall in the latter category they will have a list of a few things to talk to you about, but if not they should say "thank you for your time" and move on. Phone calls to unknown people are not the place to get into long debates with already committed voters. It is a waste of time for a campaign’s goals of identifying its voters and getting them out. That is what makes me suspicious of your caller's response. Either it was a very poorly trained campaign worker (probably) or it was someone from the other side (Bush) playing dirty tricks by antagonizing voters in the undecided category against Dean (a not unheard of, if sleazy, tactic.) Regardless, you are a new voter and if you want to check out the issues of this election don't let this one person's rudeness dissuade you from learning all about each of the potential candidates.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I think he was refering to the unemployment numbers.


the exact statement was, "jobs are on the rise".

unemployment is a little bit different. to count on that figure, bush would have had to say, "unemployment is on the decline".

i'm relying solely on daschle for that 1000 number. (what is that, about one per area code?)

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by zimv20
the exact statement was, "jobs are on the rise".

unemployment is a little bit different. to count on that figure, bush would have had to say, "unemployment is on the decline".

i'm relying solely on daschle for that 1000 number. (what is that, about one per area code?)

That number of 1000 is very misleading. And, frankly will be revised. That was initial data, and total BS. I know that our company created over 2,000 new jobs in the 3rd quarter alone.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I know that our company created over 2,000 new jobs in the 3rd quarter alone.

wow! how many have been filled?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
That number of 1000 is very misleading. And, frankly will be revised. That was initial data, and total BS. I know that our company created over 2,000 new jobs in the 3rd quarter alone.

The figure of 1000 jobs is a "net" figure. Some sectors continue to lose jobs and at the same time some are hiring. While the figures may well be revised they will not likely reach the 150,000 level that is needed to reach a break even point to take into account new people entering the job market. I think economists are hoping for job growth in the coming months, but no one can seriously look to these figures and talk of “jobs on the rise.”

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The figure of 1000 jobs is a "net" figure.

though i must admit, using the net figure is more honest than saying "30,000 jobs were added in december," while ignoring the 29,000 that were lost.

(i made up those numbers)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
though i must admit, using the net figure is more honest than saying "30,000 jobs were added in december," while ignoring the 29,000 that were lost.

(i made up those numbers)

It's the only way to get a gauge on what is happening in the job market. Some sectors will always be better off than others.

While this is off topic of the thread I think it is also important to point out that the overall unemployment figures went down only because of the large amount of "discouraged" job seekers - those who are no longer counted as unemployed because they have given up searching for jobs.

[Taft]

[Reffering to the original topic of a Dean campaign phone call]

This is pretty much par for the course, as far as campaign efforts go. From what I understand, the candidates and their campaign managers have very little contact with the majority of the campaign supporters. What this means is the supporters have a lot of control (read: lack of supervision) in how they conduct themselves.

As an example, I'll point you to this article detailing some of the more sleazy goings on during the New Hampshire primary buildup. Dirty Tricks in New Hampshire (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0401210339jan21,1,6709902.story?coll=chi-news-hed) Or how about this one (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/29/calls/) in the Florida Gubenatorial campaign.

I'm sure I could find a whole heck of a lot more (I remember hearing about a few incidents in the 200 race), but you get the picture. And G4scott, you have to get a clue if you think that dems are the only ones pulling this crap. Its how politics in this country work, republican or democrat.

The only problem I have is that it is impossible to distiguish when this dirty tricks have been instituted by the people running the campaign, or its being done by their followers, independent of the campaign. I think a little more transparency in the campaign organizations might help figure that out.

Taft

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by zimv20
wow! how many have been filled?

All were. That is just in one secor of the company. We also added 5 locally. The numbers are always just that numbers.

I know that personally, I am better off than I was before Bush was in office, so I am very content and happy that things are the way that they are.

[Sayhey]

Taft,

if you have the whole story on the Florida campaign would you post it. To get it takes paying Salon and I'm not quite that interested. The Chicago Tribune story is a free registration so I can get that.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
All were.

good to know some folks got some (probably much needed) jobs

[mactastic]

So I know it's campaign season so I should be ready for the sleaze to hit the fan, but I heard an ad today that seemed really over the top to me. There's a guy named Matt Kokkonen running for State Assembly here in the 33rd District. So I'm listening to one of his ads on the radio this morning, pretty much the usual me-good-him-bad stuff I'm used to hearing. But then at the end of the ad he starts comparing himself to Arnie, and one of the things he cites is that they both speak German, and that this will help them 'deal with the Democrats in Congress'.

Now, to me what it appeared he was insinuating was that Democrat = Nazi. Then I remembered the righteous fury that the RNC was leveling against MoveOn.org for their commercial comparing Bush to Hitler. And sadly I was left thinking this is more of the 'do as I say, not as I do' method of politics today.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by mactastic
Now, to me what it appeared he was insinuating was that Democrat = Nazi. Then I remembered the righteous fury that the RNC was leveling against MoveOn.org for their commercial comparing Bush to Hitler. And sadly I was left thinking this is more of the 'do as I say, not as I do' method of politics today.

Just a nitpicky clarification, it wasn't MoveOn's ad - the chosen ad is much more tasteful - those tasteless ones were simply two of I think 1000+ submissions for the contest, made by independent film makers, and not directly endorsed by MoveOn.

I just read an interesting article about this phenomenon at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:

http://www.fair.org/activism/hitler-ads.html

A quote:
"Closer to home for Fox News, on the very same day that Gibson, Hannity and O'Reilly were talking about the Hitler/Bush comparison as evidence of the left's extremism, a column ran in the New York Post that described Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean as a follower of Josef Goebbels, referred to him as "Herr Howie," accused him of "looking for his Leni Riefenstahl," called his supporters "the Internet Gestapo" and compared them to "Hitler's brownshirts.""

[mactastic]

Ah you are right of course. And I knew that, but didn't really feel like elucidating the point, since most people see it as one and the same thing.

[Taft]

More Florida follies?
Jumpy Democratic officials worry that phony phone calls might be a dirty-tricks campaign.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Anthony York

Oct. 29, 2002 _|_ WASHINGTON -- About 15 percent of the Florida voters are expected to use absentee ballots this year. And just last week, Florida Democratic Party chairman Bob Poe and Palm Beach County executive director Lisa Ramsay said they received calls reminding them to get their absentee ballots in by Nov. 10.

The problem, of course, is that's five days after they are due. Immediately, Democrats in this scandal-weary state smelled a rat.

Poe says he grilled the caller when the call came to his cellphone on Friday. The caller claimed to be a campaign volunteer for Bill McBride, the Democratic candidate for governor. When Poe asked to speak to the caller's supervisor, Poe says the caller hung up on him. "I immediately went back to the campaign thinking we had somebody out there with a bad script or something," Poe said. "We went through everybody and determined that at the time we had no live calls going out. So that's when I started getting concerned that somebody was tampering with the election."

Democrats are now suggesting that this could be the work of political dirty tricksters. Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, says that while push polling -- the art of disguising an attack against a political opponent as an objective opinion poll -- is common, he has never heard of this kind of deception before. But if the caller falsely identified himself as working for the McBride campaign, the call Poe received is not only unethical, but also illegal.

If indeed this is a deliberate, if somewhat lame, effort to fool Florida Democrats (trying to confuse the leader of the state Democratic Party about the actual date of the election is not the sign of an evil genius), it isn't the first time such a ploy has been used. During the 2000 elections in New Mexico, voters received calls claiming to be from the county clerk's office telling them their absentee ballots were flawed and should be discarded. Others in the state received e-mails claiming that voting for Democrats had been moved to a different day to eliminate overcrowding at the polls.

It is still unclear just how many in Florida received these calls. State Democrats have sent e-mails to their mailing lists seeking reports of calls like the one Poe received, but so far, only one other call has been reported. Both Bush's campaign and the state Republican Party have disavowed any knowledge of or connection to the calls.

But in a state still sensitive to issues of voter fraud and access to polling places, Democrats were not willing to rule out that friends of the Bush campaign deliberately tried to confuse Democratic voters. "Do I think that Jeb Bush paid for this? No," said Tait Sye, research director of the state party. "Do I think they have friends who are smart enough to say, 'Hey, we can do this, and pay for it, and not be connected to the campaign'? Yeah."

Sye pointed to phone calls in South Carolina attacking Sen. John McCain's family. While those calls were never traced to Bush or Bush supporters, McCain angrily blamed Bush for the calls. McCain's campaign responded with calls in Michigan to Catholic voters implying Bush was anti-Catholic.

But the scale of the calls in Florida does not seem to come close to the anti-McCain calls in South Carolina, or the anti-Bush calls in Michigan. In fact, Poe said the only other person complaining of such a call was a Democratic party employee in Palm Beach County.

Mona Blaber says she fielded a call at Democratic Party headquarters last week from a caller asking for Ramsay. "He said he was a volunteer for the McBride campaign," she said. "He mentioned the importance of voting and said the deadline to get the vote in is Nov. 10. I just figured it was a clueless volunteer."

If the call was unsuccessful in fooling Poe, the call to Ramsay was even more futile. Ramsay said she is not even voting absentee this year. In fact, Ramsay has already cast her ballot, taking advantage of the state's early-voting system.

The caller's number showed up on Poe's caller I.D. with a San Diego, Calif., area code. Poe said he and other party officials have tried calling the number dozens of time since but have not gotten an answer. Numerous attempts to call the number by Salon yielded only busy signals.

One political calling center based in San Diego is Competitive Edge Research and Communication. The firm's president, John Nienstedt, said nobody at his firm made the calls. When told about the content of the calls, he said, "That sounds like a big fat violation of the Voting Rights Act. We've never done anything like that."

Nienstedt, a Republican, said his firm usually handles Republican clients, "from the local city council races up to presidential," but declined to name any of them. He says Democrats may be barking up the wrong tree by trying to trace the call using the phone number on a caller I.D. screen.

"You can put any number you want as the outgoing number," he said. "Most call centers use a T1. There's no phone number associated with a T1 line; you can't make a call to that number, so they may not be able to trace that call."

Poe says his efforts to trace the call have been futile, and he has sent a letter to John Ashcroft calling for an investigation. Party officials say Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth, a Democrat, is also looking into the matter.

"It all points in the direction of somebody trying to tamper with the election," Poe said.

salon.com

[Sayhey]

Thanks, Taft. A very interesting story.

[G4scott]

Originally posted by Taft
And G4scott, you have to get a clue if you think that dems are the only ones pulling this crap. Its how politics in this country work, republican or democrat.

Then why did I say "Welcome to politics" ?

I am fully aware that both sides are like that, and that's why if there was another republican, or someone else with my views running for president, I'd vote for him, but we've got Bush, and although he may not be the best president ever, he's the best in my eyes, compared to the democratic hopefuls...

[Taft]

Originally posted by G4scott
Then why did I say "Welcome to politics" ?

I am fully aware that both sides are like that, and that's why if there was another republican, or someone else with my views running for president, I'd vote for him, but we've got Bush, and although he may not be the best president ever, he's the best in my eyes, compared to the democratic hopefuls...

Sorry. The way you phrased the first paragraph, I thought you were in "attack democrats mode."

My bad.

Taft

[Neserk]

Originally posted by zimv20
is it at all misleading?

yup

[Neserk]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
Sort of off topic, but it reminds me a bit of gas prices. When the oil companies want to raise the price of gasoline, they usually make the prices a LOT higher and people get angry. So lets say gas went from $1.50 a gallon to $2.00 (numbers used just for an example). After the $2.00 price has been around for a month or two, the price is lowered to $1.75 and everyone is overjoyed. But really the companies jacked up prices by $0.25 and are claiming they just cut them. Sad thing is, like Bush's claim of jobs being added, many people buy into this when if you would stop and think for a moment, your common sense would tell you otherwise.

Excellent illustration! We have to look at the numbers from when he took numbers. Comparing this year to last year just shows he doesn't suck as much as he did :D

[Neserk]

Originally posted by zimv20
the exact statement was, "jobs are on the rise".

unemployment is a little bit different. to count on that figure, bush would have had to say, "unemployment is on the decline".

i'm relying solely on daschle for that 1000 number. (what is that, about one per area code?)

From the news report I saw on CBS last week (?) unemployment *claims* are on the decline because people have given up. The way stats can be used to deceive is innumerable.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The figure of 1000 jobs is a "net" figure. Some sectors continue to lose jobs and at the same time some are hiring. While the figures may well be revised they will not likely reach the 150,000 level that is needed to reach a break even point to take into account new people entering the job market. I think economists are hoping for job growth in the coming months, but no one can seriously look to these figures and talk of “jobs on the rise.”

Indeed. The company my father is working for continues to lay off. The only reason he is protected is because of the amount of time he has been with them and the fact he is close (2 years) to retirement.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by zimv20
good to know some folks got some (probably much needed) jobs

yes, too bad there were 3,000 lost to those 2,000 gained...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Neserk
yes, too bad there were 3,000 lost to those 2,000 gained...

(nearly) everything is a resource allocation problem

[Neserk]

Originally posted by zimv20
(nearly) everything is a resource allocation problem

resource allocation problem? SOrry I'm not up on the terms. :o

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Neserk
resource allocation problem? SOrry I'm not up on the terms. :o

the idea that every problem boils down the logistics of putting resources where they're needed.

a few years ago, i made the bold claim that _all_ problems are, in effect, resource allocation problems. but some friends came up w/ a few counter-examples, so i backed off. now i say that _most_ problems are.

e.g. your car needs gas. you have money, but there's still no gas in the tank. there are those who are willing to supply you with the gas. the problem is the improper allocation of resources. trading your money for the gas, plus solving all the logistical problems of physically making the transfers, takes care of that resource allocation problem.

another: you're late. you have improperly allocated your time to the tasks you must accomplish. if you've taken on too many tasks, then you've improperly allocated your ability to accomplish tasks against the tasks you've agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to take on.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by zimv20
the idea that every problem boils down the logistics of putting resources where they're needed.

a few years ago, i made the bold claim that _all_ problems are, in effect, resource allocation problems. but some friends came up w/ a few counter-examples, so i backed off. now i say that _most_ problems are.

e.g. your car needs gas. you have money, but there's still no gas in the tank. there are those who are willing to supply you with the gas. the problem is the improper allocation of resources. trading your money for the gas, plus solving all the logistical problems of physically making the transfers, takes care of that resource allocation problem.

another: you're late. you have improperly allocated your time to the tasks you must accomplish. if you've taken on too many tasks, then you've improperly allocated your ability to accomplish tasks against the tasks you've agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to take on.

Thanks :D