🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug25.151711.11213@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.042821.23309@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.013907.9370@tss.com> mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon) writes:
>>>By what measure do you mean healthier?  The American is still the richest,
>>>most productive worker in the world BY A WIDE MARGIN.
>
>>	But then why have we lost major industries to the Japanese and
>>Europeans?
>
>Why not?  What does it matter if we lose and industry here and there?
>If we had rampant unemployment I might be a bit more worried. 

  Were there supposed to be smiley's here?     I think we *do* have 
  rampant unemployment.  Japan's unemployment rate is 3.2%.  Our official
  unemployment rate is 7.8% and that only counts people who show up 
  at the state employment office regularly.  It also doesn't reflect all
  the former high-wage, good-job workers who are now flipping burgers
  and driving cabs.   Michael Friedman is surely one of the few people
  in the US who doesn't think we have rampant unemployment.

  I'm NOT agreeing with the other poster's hopes for a social-democratic
  solution to this:  The unemployment rate in West Germany before unification
  was >8%, I'm sure the unified Germany's rate is higher still.  The
  unmplyment rates in Canada and the UK are also higher than the US and
  AW&ST said in the current issue that French aerospace industries will
  cut 32,000 jobs over the next 2 years; this on top of a very weak 
  economy there.   So it's clear to me that more government spending and 
  bigger deficits isn't the solution.  But on the other hand neither is
  Mr. Friedman's pollyanna attitude.


---peter