The Ramblings of the Millahtime Man

Thursday, July 08, 2004

If Kerry becomes the Pres many jobs will be lost

If John Kerry becomes the US President there will be many jobs lost. Some people might say this is madness and I am crazy for such a thing. Well, here is what I know.

The economy isn't tied to a paticular president or political party. We give too much credit of the economic state to president. Some does need to go to him but most doesn't. Every 10 years (approximately) there is a recession or depression. The last one was during Bush Srs time about 10 years before his son, before that it was Carter who had one and it was about 10 years before that. On this track you can go back every 10 years and the Great Depression even falls in this trend. This means that Kerry in office does not mean more new jobs than Bush being in office.

Next there comes the military contractor sector. There are many new military programs going on right now. Currently the military is greater than 2/3 logistics. This is a large footprint to maintain. These new military programs are aimed at brining technology up, decreasing the size of the force needed and shrinking the logistics footprint by a large amount. These programs will save a lot of long term money for the US Military.

But, Kerry is a democrat. And put simply that in almost all cases means a shrink in short term military spending. That means that many of these programs will be canceled and tens of thousands of people laid off.

So, Kerry in office does not mean more jobs. It probubaly means I would get laid off.


  • The bulk of your text is not in support of your premise, that electing Kerry equates to the loss of jobs, even though it is clearly implicit from contextual clues. Many words does not a good argument make.

    Your entire argument's support is the slightly implied statement "Democrats reduce military spending."

    A better argument would be to look back at Kerry's personal track record, and dissect it (in context for a stronger argument, out of context if that doesn't support your thesis).

    Your complaint is jobs. Well, if your project makes any impact on the logistics footprint of the US military, guess what? You're taking some logistics guy's job. IF your premise and all supporting arguments are true, I can just as easily vote for Kerry to protect their jobs at the cost of yours as vote against to protect yours at the cost of theirs.

    Follow THAT with Bush Jr. logic, and you are against our soldiers - hey, you prioritzed your job over theirs. Therefore, Bush Jr. would say your argument (and therefore you) is(/are) unAmerican and unpatriotic. Kerry, however, would have defended you before congressional hearings on the subject - you remember, like Viet Nam?

    You're backing which horse again?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:58 AM  

  • As far as I know, democrats typically do not reduce military spending—they just don’t increase it. They are more interested in funneling money towards useless, meaningless things that don’t help society like education, research, and social programs for the needy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:14 PM  

  • I can't even begin to properly quantify the level of irony in your post. Is is deliberate, or are you really that self-centered?

    Your job, as you've explicitly stated, is to figure out how to eliminate jobs in miltary logistics. Presumably, unless you're as woefully incompetent as your grammar suggests, you'll figure out how to eliminate, let's say, 10 jobs. That means that if you are fired, the net gain to the economy is nine jobs!

    So by your very own logic, Kerry will fire your ass, and this will be good -- and not bad -- for the unemployment situation.

    Great work, Sherlock.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:24 PM  

  • This is in response to the first comment. When I wrote that I guess I did not explain well enough the overall logistics goal.

    In the end there will be less available jobs but that is a long time from now. It's more like as guys retire and move onto other things there won't be people to fill that job. That is over the long term. This will allow for Military personal to do other things and advance into other areas and not put such a burden on having logistics people.

    It's like say for every 10 hours you used your car you had to have work done on it. Now say new cars came out that made it 400 hours. You would need less mechanics so those people could go into other areas. But, there is a transition time from old to new vehicles. Everyone just doesn't drop their existing vehicle at once. The population slowly over many years converts. Same here.

    With Kerry it would be an almost immediate and sudden loss of jobs for Military Contractors. Not a gradual deal where the number of positions shrinks as people retire. It would be a loss of jobs instead of a job transition over time.

    As far as the military forces go it would be shifting personal from log to say combat or recon.

    I hope this clarifies better.

    By Blogger matt, at 3:21 PM  

  • In response to "As far as I know, democrats typically do not reduce military spending—they just don’t increase it. They are more interested in funneling money towards useless, meaningless things that don’t help society like education, research, and social programs for the needy."

    The actually do decrease Military Spending. Flat out, plain and simple. For example when Clinton went into office there were major program cuts and layoffs at Military Contractors. He cut the money and that is typical. You will find that the military and its subcontractors vote typically for the republican candidate an overwhelming amount of the time just because of the situation.

    By Blogger matt, at 3:52 PM  

  • Hey Millahtime -

    Pretty poor reasoning, I think. Your car analogy simply argues that we should stop progress so that everybody stays employed. I.E. we should not even try to make a better car, because better cars put mechanics out of work. Stopping progress to keep people employed is hardly the American Way -- that's more akin to socialism.

    Better cars put mechanics out of work, yes. But better cars leave me with more money in my pocket. So instead of paying for a new clutch, I can go out and buy an iPod. So instead of having mechanics, we have computer engineers (and musicians). Better cars also give automotive engineers jobs. So those mechanics who now have nothing to do could get jobs (assuming they have the motivation) designing even newer and better stuff for Ford. If they don't have the motivation, then they can get a job emptying wastebaskets at Ford for the people who do.

    Similarly, I pay taxes. I pay your salary (assuming you work for some government contractor). If you get fired, I'll have more money in my pocket. Presumably, I will spend this money on some consumer junk. [This was Bush's reasoning behind his tax cuts, if you don't recognize it.] If you are smart, you will get a new job with whatever company I buy my consumer junk from. If you are not smart, you will be an unemployed blogger ;-).

    Of course this brings up a more important point. Your job (again assuming it's a government contract) is being paid by deficit spending. Someone is eventually going to have to pay that debt, or our lenders are going to start knocking on the White House door, and US government will have to file Chapter 11. There are two choices: cut government jobs, or raise taxes, to pay off the debt. If taxes are raised, I won't have the money to buy my iPod. In turn, this means that some private-sector computer engineer loses his job. Net job loss is still 1.

    So the economic policy really doesn't matter when you look at the big picture. Of course, Bush's policy has been to cut taxes and push for those tax cuts to be made permanent. Therefore, it would seem unlikely he would raise taxes to relieve the debt. So say goodbye to your desk.

    Now an issue you should care about is, when you lose your job (because you will, eventually; Kerry wants to fire you, Bush will have no choice but to fire you), will there be work in the United States for you? With all this outsourcing going on (thank Bush for promoting that trend), you may have to move to India or Taiwan to get that job making iPods.

    So vote against Kerry, just don't forget to thank the Republican Party when you have to learn Hindi or Chinese in a few years. ;-).


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:09 PM  

  • Just wanted to point that defense spending was cut for the first time since Nixon during the administration of George Bush '41. Clinton only continued the trend.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:11 AM  

  • Greetings,

    I Really think you have a great blog here, and see you have a very high page ranking, I found this info out from this page. Try it out.

    I have several pages of my own,

    I'ts about femme Clothing. This site is in French language.
    My second site is about Chaussures that is Shoes in french and bottes that is boots in french.

    My Third site is about Chocolate that is made in France. The Frech language just drops to e at the end so it is chocolat

    By Blogger Thanks for you visit, at 9:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home