Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on January 09, 2004, 08:59:22 AM
-
Unemployment down to 5.7%
http://www.bls.gov/
-
The unemployment figures are not good news. But Bush is not to blame, no politician can stop the job loss we are experiencing.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
The unemployment figures are not good news. But Bush is not to blame, no politician can stop the job loss we are experiencing.
ra
Down, since March 2000, RA. No, unemployment, no matter how small, is never a good thing, but when it drops with a booming ecomony, thats a good thing. Tax cuts work. End of story. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Down, since March 2000, RA. No, unemployment, no matter how small, is never a good thing, but when it drops with a booming ecomony, thats a good thing. Tax cuts work. End of story. :)
Tax cuts do work, but they can't prevent the global economic shift which is happening. March 2000 was a low point for the economy, but it doesn't mean it was the last low point we'll ever see. 1000 jobs were created in December; 130,000 were expected. We obviously need more Mexicans.
ra
-
Bush deserves no fault or credit for unemployment.
The persistent unemployment is not related to "strength" of the economy. Human labor is valuable and scarce, so it is only a matter of allowing the market to establish the proper market-clearing price for it.
If a price is held artificially high, a surplus of unsold product occurs. In this case the price of labor is held above the level where hiring is profitable - due to the government labor legislation and regulations.
Allow the wages to go lower and there will be no unemployment. The price of goods will fall more than the salaries, so the level of life will increase as a result - which is natural with more people working and the same number consuming.
There is no way for Bush to roll back the labor legislation back to the pre-1930 levels even if he wanted to.
The current fluctuation in unempleyments are caused by the opening of businesses with borrowed money - many of the created jobs will be lost as soon as the businesses prove unprofitable in the next recession.
miko
-
Does anyone know what the current natural rate of unemployment is, due to job transitions, changing careers, etc? There will always be some unemployment due to natural causes.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Does anyone know what the current natural rate of unemployment is, due to job transitions, changing careers, etc? There will always be some unemployment due to natural causes.
Not exactly your answer, but heres an interesting chart:
(http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/02/economy/economy/worst_monthly_cut.gif)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Bush deserves no fault or credit for unemployment.
miko
No, not directly.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Does anyone know what the current natural rate of unemployment is, due to job transitions, changing careers, etc? There will always be some unemployment due to natural causes.
The natural rate of unemployment is just a theoretical number, but I've heard it's around 4%. But the unemployment rate is only part of the picture. If 10,000 electrical engineers making $80K/year lose their jobs and have to take jobs managing inventory for $35K/year, the unemployment rate stays the same but the economy takes a big hit.
ra
-
Rip, your blind faith in GW Bush is admirable. Naive, but admirable.
-
Originally posted by banana
Rip, your blind faith in GW Bush is admirable. Naive, but admirable.
How do you know its blind? Have you watched the economic numbers and the figures over the last year? Do you have proof its blind? I have proof its not blind. Put up or shut up.
-
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.
-
Ripsnort: Have you watched the economic numbers and the figures over the last year? Do you have proof its blind? I have proof its not blind. Put up or shut up.
I am not here to denigrade Bush but rather the general economic assumptions of all post-1929 administrations.
Taxes are goods that he government distracts from the private economy. Those goods are spent on government projects.
If the amount of spending is not decreased, it means that the amount of taxes confiscated from the private economy has not decreased.
The tax breaks that we got are just money. We got tax breaks, the government increased spending. But where did the resources come from? Money are not resources. They are not consumed or ised for production. Money are used to facilitate exchange of resources. It's a claim for resources.
When government creates money, it's the only entity that gets "something from nothing". It creates more claims on the same amount of resources and thus reduces the value of the existing claims.
Basically, the government stole value from a person's retirement account in order to lend it to a businessman who would temporarily give the job to the same person. Temporarily becasue the project will most likely fall since there was not enough resources to start it before and none were created and nobody was willing to extend him credit on merit untill the new money was created. Basically, a person payes for his own salary with a lot of waste involved.
It has been done by all governments. We are in a regular business cycle - somewhat influenced (but not entirely controlled) by Greenspan.
Ripsnort, employment is expence. Expense and employment are only good if they result in more value produced than spent. No private business would show increased expences as a demonstration of it's progress. Only the profits.
Your blind faith is in believing that any expence of an artificially- caused boom are bound to result in profit. It does not.
You have no basis for such opinion.
miko
-
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?
-
Jobs picture (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict)
-
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?
-
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'!!!
-
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.
-
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?
-
Tax cuts + massive spending works as Keynes predicted, for now.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Some dont understand the evils in giving up future moneys for the idea of more moneys today...
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
Puts hand to forehead. Must remember to sign in before reading threads to avoid the gibberish from Vader
Guess who received his talking points from the DNC web site before posting. "must spin all good news as right-wing lies"
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How do you know its blind? Have you watched the economic numbers and the figures over the last year? Do you have proof its blind? I have proof its not blind. Put up or shut up.
It's blind because Bush has no more control over the economy as he does employment.
Prove that he does... put up or shut up.
You might as well give him credit for all the births in America too...
Does he go around screwing all the women and making them pregnant? No!
Nor does he personally causes companies to do well, make more product, sell more product... and thus make more profit.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
It's blind because Bush has no more control over the economy as he does employment.
Prove that he does... put up or shut up.
A current Reuters article says: "The U.S. economy rocketed
ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third
quarter of 2003 as consumers, their wallets fattened by tax
cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday. "
Or would you prefer the New York Times story about the fastest pace of economic growth in four years, there was this: "Most of that growth stemmed from a sharp rise in consumer spending, driven largely by a continuing boom in mortgage refinancing and checks that were mailed out as part of the recent tax cut."
Low interest rates and tax cuts are the twin strategies of the Bush administration for restoring the economy following the post-9/11 economic problems. They appear to be working.
-
Lets just hope that Bush's economic "bubble" lasts as long as Clinton's.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lets just hope that Bush's economic "bubble" lasts as long as Clinton's.
You mean the Tech boom? Would be nice, but even professionals in economics say it was a rare event in our history.
-
Rare because it was the longest growth cycle in history. But you knew that.
Bush only has 6 more years of good economy to match his predecessor.
-
the tech bubble to me was a market where everyone knew it was a dishonest inflation of share value and everyone jumped into it with eyes wide open, ripping others and themsleves off in an insane display of greed with absolutely no thought towards future bursting.
Many people were incredibly wealthy beyond what even they knew was feasible and then they were broke. Just like that. Many stories about tweny somethings with million dollar homes, ferraris and vacation condos in mexico and hawaii and then back home living with mom and dad, running from creditors without a dime in their pocket. It was a dishonest self inflicted scam.
Unfortunatey, neither clinton can be blamed for that particular lie.
-
Rip
I gotta say that this,
"Down, since March 2000, RA. No, unemployment, no matter how small, is never a good thing, but when it drops with a booming ecomony, thats a good thing. Tax cuts work. End of story. "
is an unusual post. The job news was viewed every where but by you as negative. It droped the market 133 points. But you present it here as a ringing endorsement of the president?
I dont really get it.
-
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107828,00.html)
and who is this Vader?
-
propaganda he probly parroting am radio. and likes his gravy train.
dont see alot of micky ds employees posting this bile.
add fascists mascarading as conservatives and nothing suprising at all.
and the poster has a poor record on "truth"
i really wish he would credit his stuff and stop stealing intelectual propert. he isn't smart enought to even understant his own posts.
his rebuttals tend to be hu? what? read the link!!!!
-
Originally posted by Virage
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107828,00.html)
and who is this Vader?
Think Faux doesn't spin the news from AP?
Omitting unfavorable paragraphs IS SPIN no matter how you look at it.
Faux Sez...
Job growth is expected to be a key issue as November's presidential election nears. The economy has lost about 2.3 million jobs since President Bush took office.
AP sez...
Job growth is expected to be a key issue as November's presidential election nears, and President Bush could be vulnerable. The economy has lost about 2.3 million jobs since he took office, giving him the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover.
AP Sez...
Bush "has all but declared 'mission accomplished' on an economy that is still not generating jobs and that is losing manufacturing jobs each and every month," Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark said. "I think it's time that George W. Bush loses his job so that we can put the American people back to work."
Faux decides to omit that whole paragraph.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
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?
Well that's a good question. What is your point? You seem to me to be saying that you think Bush is a good President because there has been no general increase or decrease in actual employment in December.
But it's more likely that you just made a mistake and assumed that a drop unemployment ment a correlating rise in employment.
-
fox is the only source that spins the news for a conservative bias in a us media market where 90% of the others provide
"alternative (lmao)" liberal bias. The mainstream us media is still dominated by a liberal bias but the liberals are damned pissed (keyword faux) that fox is as successfull as it is, even though its alone in its market. Figures as usual and the predictable condition reeks of typical liberal hatred towards any opposing point of view.
do you really want to know who vader is? I dont think so.
-
Something I stumbled upon recently, at least I found it interesting...
Manufacturing Payrolls Declining Globally: The Untold Story
By Joseph Carson, Senior Vice President and U.S. Economist
The popular explanation for the decline in US manufacturing payrolls is that American workers are being categorically replaced by workers in China and other parts of Asia. In truth, factory jobs have been slashed not only in America and Europe, but in Asia as well.
Contrary to popular belief, the global push to relocate facilities to countries with lower production costs has not caused an increase in manufacturing employment in those areas. In fact, since 1995, the reduction of manufacturing jobs in China has been as large as that of any other country.
Merely lowering operating costs is not enough for businesses to survive today. Enormous gains in technology have raised the bar on global competitiveness, punishing firms with outmoded facilities regardless of their location.
These new developments are certainly bullish for both the US and global economies, as manufacturers will need to continue to invest in innovative technologies in order to remain competitive.
One of our more interesting findings is that, taken on its own, China's job losses are double the average of the remaining 17 countries* for the same seven-year period. Manufacturing employment in the 17 largest economies other than China fell a little more than 7%, from 96 million in 1995 to 89 million in 2002. In contrast, China's fell a whopping 15% in the period, from 98 million in 1995 to 83 million in 2002.
-
The popular explanation for the decline in US manufacturing payrolls is that American workers are being categorically replaced by workers in China and other parts of Asia. In truth, factory jobs have been slashed not only in America and Europe, but in Asia as well.
A more meaningful comparison of manufacturing would be the share of global manufacturing GDP which each country produces. You can bet those figures would show Asia's share increasing and the US/Europe decreasing. Percentage changes in manufacturing employment don't mean much.
ra
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Unemployment down to 5.7%
http://www.bls.gov/
Perhaps a glance at Reuters for a slightly more balanced viewpoint?
http://www.reuters.com/financeArticle.jhtml?storyID=4104097&newsType=usGoldRpt&menuType=markets
-
For the link challenged...
U.S. companies hired just 1,000 workers in December, the government said, sharply below Wall Street forecasts of a jump of at least 130,000. The unemployment rate fell in December to 5.7 percent, its lowest level in over a year, from 5.9 percent in November. But the decline in December was mainly because people dropped out of the work force.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
fox is the only source that spins the news for a conservative bias in a us media market where 90% of the others provide
So, you're admitting that their slogan of "Fair and Balanced" is just hogwash...they're not being truthful is 'OK' for you I guess...huh?
-
lars, Its an advertising slogan.
They are no better or no worse then the rest of the liberal media in as far as they provide what they deternime to be newsworthy, All they do is give a conservative spin rather than a liberal spin.
Being the only conservative national cable tv spinner makes them unique in the market. I like variety and fox simply provides more variety for me. Now I get a better "overall" view of what a larger and more diverse news media presents, rather than just a bunch of liberal news media competing against itself can provide. For that I am thankfull.
-
the decline in December was mainly because people dropped out of the work force
still think he was the right man for the job? I think he has eclipsed his daddy's unemployment figures.
strk
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Now I get a better "overall" view of what a larger and more diverse news media presents, rather than just a bunch of liberal news media competing against itself can provide. For that I am thankfull.
With noted tabloid journalists like Bill (Inside Edition) O'Reilley and Geraldo (I don't know where Al Capone is, but our troops are over here Saddam!) Rivera holding down the fort for Rupert (I invented tabloids) Murdoch's latest media prostitution experiment, it's no wonder that the weak minded flock to Faux.
-
Murdoch's latest media prostitution experiment, it's no wonder that the weak minded flock to Faux.
====
The anger is evident. My point is made, again, and again.
Hatred for any point of view that does not reflect the self destructive liberal mindset has become a trademark for ignorance.
-
No, It's not hatred for anything....except a load of BS.
Example:
(http://web1.ami-admin.com/images/46801.jpg)
I just prefer RESPONSABLE journalism to YELLOW journalism.
-
American Media, Inc. of Boca Raton Florida is the publisher of Weekly World News as well as several other supermarket tabloids and does not have any apparent links to News Corp or Rupert Murdock.
-
Are you so tainted in your constricted belief system that you can honestly conclude with any detectable sincerity that the people who buy tabloid pulp are the "only" people that watch fox cable news?
The people I know that watch Fox also watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC......the really engaged people, the people not afraid to think, gather their information from as many different sources as are available to them. That Fox is in the mix, providing a decent conservative spin really pisses you off doesnt it. Its a good thing though because it does expose your palpable ignorance.
I have never seen anyone ever buy that tabloid pulp. Most people just snicker at its comic bafoonery. You dont believe in bat boy do you?
-
He does not own WWN. It was an example of Tabloid Journalism. The very same TYPE of trash sensationalistic journalism Murdoch made his fortune from, along with pornography. Trying to defend Murdoch's integrity does not lend credence to your arguement.
That Fox is in the mix, providing a decent conservative spin really pisses you off doesnt it. Its a good thing though because it does expose your palpable ignorance.
The only palpable ignorance I can see exposed is not knowing when to use a question mark. Faux is the worst form of TV journalism, 0 integrity. Their Poster Boy O'Reilly has time and again been nailed for lying both outright and by omission. But, don't take my word for it.
Look at what noted journalist Bill Moyers has to say about O'Reilly. (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/12/04_Moyers.html)
-
The only palpable ignorance I can see exposed is not knowing when to use a question mark.
====
Im devastated. simply devastated......
Hate rolls out of you like sewage. No point
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Hate rolls out of you like sewage. No point
Whoa Amigo. I didn't start the personal attack.
it's no wonder that the weak minded flock to Faux.
This was not directed at you personally. Sorry if you felt it was. It was directed at the Faux audience in general.
That Fox is in the mix, providing a decent conservative spin really pisses you off doesnt it. Its a good thing though because it does expose your palpable ignorance.
I have never seen anyone ever buy that tabloid pulp. Most people just snicker at its comic bafoonery. You dont believe in bat boy do you?
Don't be hatin'! There ya go gettin all emotional and calling me ignorant. I feel deep emotional scars now.
The only palpable ignorance I can see exposed is not knowing when to use a question mark.
Sorry, but ya gotta admit it was as obvious as the mole on Number 3's face.(http://itsb.ucsf.edu/~vcr/APMoley1.gif)