CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No, that would be the response of the commie-libs
The "~but" shortcut wasn't created for nothing.That is a nice "legacy" building cheat sheet though.
CkG
No, that would be the response of the commie-libs
The "~but" shortcut wasn't created for nothing.That is a nice "legacy" building cheat sheet though.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: classy
Now you know the facts don't go over well here.
Neither does context.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: classy
Now you know the facts don't go over well here.
Neither does context.
CkG
LOL. When it comes to here I gotta agree there.
Its how you see things, half full or half empty. 
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
The 4.2 is for the year 1999.
The year for 2000 needs to be found and prefereably 2001.
2000 was under Clinton, 2001 should be applied to his policies also.
1992 & 1993 should be applied to Bush Senior.
Let us see what the numbers look like. That is where the real economic impact of the presidents actions should be measured.
Regretfully, 9/11 happended in 2001, that will skew the numbers slightly for either president. I do not know if one can find numbers to just give Clinton credit for the first half of 2001.
lol! Then they'll have to look for a president well before Clinton. Since when did the steel industry recover in the United States?
The major complaint about Clinton's 25 million new jobs or whatever was that the vast majority of them were low quality service industry jobs.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
To some those low quality service industry jobs can not be exported overseas. People need to be imported to fill them
Because they reset job creation by president when a new pres takes term.
+25M for Clinton -2.5M for Bush. At least he didn't lose all the jobs created under Clinton
+25M for Clinton -2.5M for Bush. At least he didn't lose all the jobs created under Clinton
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because they reset job creation by president when a new pres takes term.
+25M for Clinton -2.5M for Bush. At least he didn't lose all the jobs created under Clinton
Care to explain to me how clinton would have stopped the dotcom bust, corperate scandels and structural changes to the economy(offshoring)?
the president doesnt have as great an impact on the economy as you perceive him to have. the fact of the matter is the dot com boom of the late 90's was a fluke and most of the jobs were lost just as fast as they were created.
Cad and Galt. You two guys should write a book on labor statistics. What you two don't know should fill a good sized volume.
BDawg wrote, "Besides, the current unemployment rate is artificially affected by the mass numbers of people who were unable to find jobs and dropped out of the job market."
Cad responded with a later chime in from Galt, "Keep trying to tell yourself that."
Here's a Bureau of Labor Statistics Link. and, lest this be too hard to do, here's what it says about being employed and unemployed. I tried to keep it simple because I know you guys don't like data.
People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid
employees during the reference week; worked in their own business,
profession, or on their own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours
in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they
were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather,
vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following
criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were
available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find
employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference
week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be
looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data
derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for
or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
The part in bold means that if you're discouraged and not looking for work, which is what BDawg said (please see paragraph two of this post), you're not "unemployed," hence the unemployment rate is lower than it should be if you counted people who were so discouraged they hadn't applied in a four week period.
BDawg wrote, "Besides, the current unemployment rate is artificially affected by the mass numbers of people who were unable to find jobs and dropped out of the job market."
Cad responded with a later chime in from Galt, "Keep trying to tell yourself that."
Here's a Bureau of Labor Statistics Link. and, lest this be too hard to do, here's what it says about being employed and unemployed. I tried to keep it simple because I know you guys don't like data.
People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid
employees during the reference week; worked in their own business,
profession, or on their own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours
in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they
were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather,
vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following
criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were
available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find
employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference
week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be
looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data
derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for
or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
The part in bold means that if you're discouraged and not looking for work, which is what BDawg said (please see paragraph two of this post), you're not "unemployed," hence the unemployment rate is lower than it should be if you counted people who were so discouraged they hadn't applied in a four week period.
actually what i think he was refering to was the number of ppl who's unemployment insurance benefits expired
BINGO!!!!! ding ding ding. YOU WIN!
There is an estimated 1.5 to 3 million workers who are not on the rolls being counted, or are severly under employed. Someone needs to look at the increase of government assistance to families and individuals because "unemployment Insurance" expired. Unemployment insurance is the basis for the figures quoted. If the true picture was revealed, you would see about 8% unemployment.
If you are not looking for work, I dont see how you can be counted in the job market.
BLS does have states on these people.
Exactly... if someone is not interested in finding work and they stopped looking, they shouldn't be counted because they don't want to work.
How can they expect to find a job...do these people think that someone is going to call them out of the blue? If you want something, you should go get it and not expect it to come to you.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I've been all up and down the bls stuff before it became popular here to link to it and cherry pick info. Yes I know how the numbers are gathered and what constitutes what - but that doesn't mean what BDawg says is true. The "current" rate is not artificially affected - ALL the rates have been affected by such things. The problem is that this supposed "mass" of people are themselves the problem. I know alot of "unemployed" people - but many don't want jobs and instead raise their kids. Should they be counted too? I know that doesn't fit into the grand scheme of socialism perse but it does happen. You know - people taking care of their own. Anyway - his were not infact based on truth but rather rhetoric. People who aren't actively looking for a job shouldn't be counted, not only because they haven't been counted in the past for the unemployment figures, but because they obviously CHOSE not to be part of the labor pool - otherwise they'd be looking - no?. For people to say "people have given up looking for jobs!" every time the unemployment rate drops is intellectually dishonest. Plus I'd like to meet one of these disillusioned people who quit looking for work, I'd be interested to know why they don't look anymore and see who they blame and what they plan on doing about it(besides just "quit looking")
Do we really need to worry about creating jobs for people who aren't looking to be employed? Also, as has been pointed out before - this survey doesn't make room for contract employees and/or those self-employed, but I'm sure Bow will follow this up with his obligitory cautionary note
Anyway - my statement stands and those who wish to delude themselves by telling themselves what BDawg said can continue to do so - it's their option to not understand how employment and the labor pool works and wallow in their half-empty glass.
CkG
Wow those graphs are pretty stout. That should put any arguement to rest about whether or not Clinton was a great president. Can't argue with success. Plain and simple.
True enough. Al Gore created the Internet and Clinton created the "dot com". Then again Clinton always did leave the mess for others to clean up...just ask Monica.
LOL dot com on the blue dress, I needed a good laugh today
LOL dot com on the blue dress, I needed a good laugh today
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter