I am starting to think that Bush was the right man for the job

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Pongo
The commerce department expected 148000 new jobs in December and got 1000 but since 300 000 people stoped even trying to find work the stat improved.

Where do such wildly wrong numbers come from Rip?

Labor Department. They are not affiliated politically with any side.  Care to check the link out?

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
guess who listens to am radio all morning posting right wing fascist crap on multiple boards on the bosses dime?


he knows where his gravy train is comming from.

Touche'!!!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
guess who listens to am radio all morning posting right wing fascist crap on multiple boards on the bosses dime?


he knows where his gravy train is comming from.

LOL, wrong as usual.  I listen to KOMO 1000.  Check it out on the web.

[Ripsnort]

My point is, when I see great news, with 6-8 % jumps in the economy combined with unemployment drop ratings, I smile.

Why?

Because it signifies a good strong economic recovery. We now have all 12 indicators looking good.

Below is the US GDP by quarter (in $ billions).
1999q2 9,392.6
1999q3 9,502.2
1999q4 9,671.1
2000q1 9,695.6
2000q2 9,847.9
2000q3 9,836.6
2000q4 9,887.7
2001q1 9,882.2
2001q2 9,866.3
2001q3 9,834.6
2001q4 9,883.6
2002q1 9,997.9
2002q2 10,045.1
2002q3 10,128.4
2002q4 10,160.8
2003q1 10,210.4
2003q2 10,288.3
2003q3 10,493.1

Good news, no?

[Montezuma]

Tax cuts + massive spending works as Keynes predicted, for now.

[miko2d]

Ripsnort: Good news, no?

 OK, Ripsnort - consider this.

 When a product is created that is priced 1 billion dollars - say, a piece of capital equipment, it's added to the GDP for that year.

 When a venture does not work out and that item created with borrowed money proves worthless or liquidated at a fraction of a cost, is the GDP number for the year it was created adjusted downwards? Never.

 The accounting you've presented is totally false. Any accountant will tell you that a business such as a US economy should not be just using money flow (GDP) but the valuation of assets and liabilities.

 If you earned $100 more but your assets declined in value by $200, are you better off?

 miko

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by miko2d
 The accounting you've presented is totally false.  miko

You might want to bring that up with the Government.  Don't shoot the reporter.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
You might want to bring that up with the Government.  Don't shoot the reporter.

But your reporting it different then CNN did, They said the jobless rate was recognised to have droped in an artificial way. There were not an increase in jobs. There was a decrease in people looking for them. They had a labour person on the show explaining it. There is no possitive spin here Rip. 300 000 people gave up looking for work in December.

[kappa]

Some dont understand the evils in giving up future moneys for the idea of more moneys today...

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Pongo
But your reporting it different then CNN did, They said the jobless rate was recognised to have droped in an artificial way. There were not an increase in jobs. There was a decrease in people looking for them. They had a labour person on the show explaining it. There is no possitive spin here Rip. 300 000 people gave up looking for work in December.

Yes. But the stats always including those who gave up to look for work. Do you think the labor dept. skews results depending on whos in office? LMAO!

And using CNN as a source rather than the Dept. of Labor is laughable at best.

[miko2d]

Ripsnort: You might want to bring that up with the Government.  Don't shoot the reporter.

 Never intended to.  I should have said that the government accounting that you've cited is false but I thought it was clear.

 On the other hand, the claim that "it signifies a good strong economic recovery" is totally yours and it is wrong. If anything, "it" does not signify at all. You may get more dividends some year and capital loss or you can get less dividends and capital gain.
 Just looking at the dividends does not provide any information whatseoever.


kappa: Some dont understand the evils in giving up future moneys for the idea of more moneys today.

 Not money, value.
 With money, it's actually correct - spend it now rather than have more of it but with less purchasing power due to inflation.

 People do not save as much because artificially low interest rates and induced inflation (housing, etc.)  make it counter-productive to save.

 miko

[Yeager]

How many americans have created their own employment and is that fact capture in government statistics anywhere.

I was talking to a fella here that said many tens of thousands of jobs have been self created in the past year.

I dont know.   Its an interesting question

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Labor Department. They are not affiliated politically with any side.  Care to check the link out?

No, you should.  Pongo is right, you are mistaken.


"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: DECEMBER 2003
Employment was virtually unchanged in December while the unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent, continued
to trend down, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today."

"Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

The civilian labor force fell by 309,000 in December to 146.9 million; the labor force participation rate
decreased over the month to 66.0 percent. Over the year, the participation rate declined by 0.4 percentage
point. Both total employment (138.5 million) and the employment-population ratio (62.2 percent) were about
unchanged in December. (See table A-1.)"


"Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
In December, about 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about the same as a
year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however,
because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 433,000
discouraged workers in December, also about the same as in December 2002. Discouraged workers, a
subset of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no
jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for other
reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Thrawn
No, you should.  Pongo is right, you are mistaken.


"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: DECEMBER 2003
Employment was virtually unchanged in December while the unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent, continued
to trend down, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today."

"Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

The civilian labor force fell by 309,000 in December to 146.9 million; the labor force participation rate
decreased over the month to 66.0 percent. Over the year, the participation rate declined by 0.4 percentage
point. Both total employment (138.5 million) and the employment-population ratio (62.2 percent) were about
unchanged in December. (See table A-1.)"


"Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
In December, about 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about the same as a
year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however,
because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 433,000
discouraged workers in December, also about the same as in December 2002. Discouraged workers, a
subset of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no
jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for other
reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Thrawn, they calculate the data the same way as they did when unemployment was 4.7 in April 2000 and likewise when it was 6.7 in March 2003.  They are never counted. So whats the point again, Thrawn/Pongo?

[Pongo]

Yeager, Rip.
Good points. I dont know what the stats mean I just know what they dont mean. They dont mean that .2 % more people found work.  I assume that the 300 000 didnt die or fall off the globe. They may well have found work and not reported it. Silly stat but the only one they have I guess.