Sorry, but I don't understand all the anger and emotion directed at an unimportant cabinet officer. The Labor Department has ZERO to do with economic policy. Its role is to interface with the union community. Big labor happens to be the biggest enemy of this administration. This is a fight that Bush did not start. Labor dumped hundreds of millions of dollars in hard and soft money, plus who knows how much more in campaign workers, into Gore's campaign and the campaigns of congressional democrats. Every year labor unions give 90+% of their contributions to democrats, despite the fact their members are almost evenly split between the parties. Chao's Department has alienated Big Labor. How? By refusing to squash a series of criminal investigations into how labor bosses manipulated various investments in union insurance companies to pocket huge personal profits. Labor has gotten so used to getting a free ride for corruption and thuggish violence that they are offended when anyone calls them to account. The AFL-CIO is headed by a far left activist, John Sweeney, who uses the union's immense funds to push far left policies that have little to do with labor/managment relations and with which many members strongly disagree. Unfortunately, the members are required by law in most states to belong to the union and pay their dues over to left wing activists and thugs to keep their jobs.
the need to protect employment opportunities and realities (actual jobs) through retirement is as old a concern as the hills and dirt. whether its globalization or the new compasionate conservatism or whatever profit seeking justification it is, this need remanins constant. this never excuses the unions for thier heavy handidness or Labor Secy's from knowing their role, whether important or otherwise. Call any call center (credit card cust svc, cell phone cust svc, software tech support cust svc) and see whether or not your phone call has just traversed half way around the world to the 3rd world countries of where ever. These calls used to terminate in the US, where the values and standards were the same. Try explaining to a 3rd world operator that the cell phone charge of $8,350 was not your call. That's more money than they see for their yearly salary in US Dollars. Listen, a case can be made for both sides of this frustration with the person in their role, however, one respondent said it best, that such arrogance doesn't suit her/us/anyone well.
What can Elaine Chao even do about Americas rising unemployment? Call up IBM or American Express and tell them, "now you companies behave yourselfs and stop sending jobs to India and China"? Her pyscho babble is going to have a hard time explaining the worst jobless recovery in the post war era. Why haven't there been more shakeups in govt over this? Why aren't people getting fired over this "life support economy"? A trillion dollar budget deficit and trade deficit, zero job creation in over 2 years, american manufacturing on its death bed, a housing bubble that is about to pop, zero pent up demand by consumers, etc. How has Chao been able to keep her job? By looking pretty for the camera?
Oh, of course, cos that would solve the problem right away. But really now, if you want everyone else to play the 'globalism' game, then you have to play too. I've heard this mentioned a few times now. But I'm puzzled as to why this claim keeps getting regurgitated. Just how are people measuring how bad the 'jobless' (yeah, right) recovery is in order to call it 'the worst'? Surely they can't be using the unemployment rates themselves, because they just don't compare very badly at all to previous recovery phase unemployment levels. Here's some quick stats I dug up from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: (Seasonally adjusted) Recession: Q2 '60 - Q1 '61. Unemployment at peak: 5.2 Unemployment at trough: 6.8 Unemployment in subsequant quarters after the trough: 7, 6.8, 6.2 Recession: Q4 '69 - Q4 '70 Unemployment at peak: 3.6 Unemployment at trough: 5.8 Unemployment in subsequant quarters after the trough: 5.9, 5.9, 6, 6, 5.8 Recession: Q3 '74 - Q1 '75 Unemployment at peak: 4.8 Unemployment at trough: 8.2 Unemployment in subsequant quarters after the trough: 8.9, 8.5, 8.3 Recession: Q3 '81 - Q4 - '82 Unemployment at peak: 7.4 Unemployment at trough: 10.7 Unemployment in subsequant quarters after the trough: 10.4, 10.1, 9.4, 8.5 Recession: Q3 '90 - Q1 '91 Unemployment at peak: 5.7 Unemployment at trough: 6.6 Unemployment in subsequant quarters after the trough: 6.8, 6.9, 7.1, 7.4, 7.6, 7.6 Recession: Q1 '01 - Q4 '01 Unemployment at peak: 4.2 Unemployment at trough: 5.6 Unemployment in subsequant quarters after the trough: 5.6, 5.9, 5.8, 5.9, 5.8, 6.2 Well, maybe because things simply have not been all that bad! (From an unemployment perspective)
It has been the worst jobless recovery in the post war era. Not opinion but fact. It hasn't been the highest level of unemployment, but it's been the longest period after an expansion in which no jobs have been created. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/06/business/06JOBS.html The 6th paragraph from the bottom on the first page explains it all. During all other recoveries in the post war era, there has been net job creation 22 months after recovery. Not so this time. I've seen this referenced in articles many times. I had to laugh when Elaine Chao said it was "positive" the unemployment rate fell 1/10th of a percent. Discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force and thus dropping the official unemployment rate are "good things".