----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Race to the Bottom
> Clearly, the 90's were unusual. In some ways, but not in employment. The job growth from '92 to '00 was 21%. The average job growth over 8 years, since the '40-'48 comparison, was 18%: higher than average, but not unusual. The sixties saw far higher growth than this, peaking out over '61 to '69, with a 30% job growth. Even '72 to '80 saw better job growth than '92 to '00, at 23%. >In short, the majority of the 2 million > jobs that have been lost in the past couple years are cyclical losses > rather than structural, i.e., temporary losses due to the recession, not > permanent lossed due to globalization. By the way, only in 2003 did the > private sector get back into the black, saving more than investing. It > may take a year or two longer for unemployment to get back to 5% in the > cycle. 2002 and 2003 were the first consecutive years with a net loss of jobs in each year since the end of WWII. 2003 compared to 2000 shows a net job loss of 1.4%. The next worse performance was -0.3% from '79-'82. And, well into the recovery, the president has had to back off his projections for job creation in '04. What's happening is not business as usual. The numbers I've seen indicate that about 1/3rd of the loss can be attributed to outsourcing. But, I think that a fundamental shift in the US economy may be taking place. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
