• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

good news today on the economy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Sternfan,
Since you asked... I care what Moonbeam says. It is only depressing to those who get depressed by the truth. I don't so I find it refreshing..
Well, others here seem to have a problem with attacking the source - not the substance. Moony doesn't get a free pass on that;)

FWIW - I read the same news on a couple different sites this morning - are they "Fair and balanced toward the optimistic like a good sycophant should" too?


note to sternfan - NEVER EVER post foxnews here - always find a different source. It gets annoying to hear the libs whine about Fox so please don't provide them with an easy opportunity.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Bowfinger,
The only way I think the 'jobs' statistics should be presented is to footnote the variables.. give the numbers monthly and ytd. Do it by new jobs and jobs lost.
show the total workforce and what it was last month... deriving a net gain or loss in jobs.
Show the unemployed roles total and as above what it was.
show the population increase for those who reach working age.. 18, 21, 24.
and the $ value per hour of the new jobs gained and lost..
With this data one can conclude..
Example only...
we increased jobs by 10000, had an increase in Unemployed roles and had an increase to first time job seekers.. and if the $ value of the jobs gained is 8$ we can reasonably assume we know who got the jobs and who fell off Unemployment insurance and are spending their 401k to stimulate the economy..

I didn't think this through.. there may be other things to add.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Numbers less than 400k indicate the employment market is expanding. This is good news...
400K is an arbitrary indicator of the employment market. For instance, if you lowered the threshold by 5% I doubt it would reflect a significant change in the employment picture . . . except of course the anti-Bushies would say "job market continues to languish", while Bushies would exclaim, "jobless claims fall by 23K or nearly 6% (optimist will always round up) in a week and 77K or nearly 17% since the April high."

A given report has very little significance (except for the people gaining or losing their employment). Under current conditions that real utility comes from tracking the trend. Jobless claims are clearly on a negative trajectory. It's good news if the negative trajectory is due to increased employment but you need a lot more information to assign causation.

In my state, there few new employment opportunities being created, layoffs have slowed but continue to outpace new hiring, and many people have been unemployed for many months. As someone noted above, exhausting unemployment benefits, grads favoring more school over the job search, etc could also explain the jobs report.
You can the 400k benchmark number with any economist you want. They seem to agree that numbers below 400k indicate a growing job market.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,937
3,741
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Sternfan,
Since you asked... I care what Moonbeam says. It is only depressing to those who get depressed by the truth. I don't so I find it refreshing..
Well, others here seem to have a problem with attacking the source - not the substance. Moony doesn't get a free pass on that;)

FWIW - I read the same news on a couple different sites this morning - are they "Fair and balanced toward the optimistic like a good sycophant should" too?


note to sternfan - NEVER EVER post foxnews here - always find a different source. It gets annoying to hear the libs whine about Fox so please don't provide them with an easy opportunity.

CkG
I was just trying to bring his attention to that. And how could you get depressed with Caddy around. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I'm the most deptessing person on the board. Gees, now I feel bad. How could you be so cruel?

I wonder if your craving for good news, your need to bring it to light might indicate an underlying depression or something. Dang, I wish I hadn't thought of that. Now I'm going to worry about you.

 

Sternfan

Senior member
May 24, 2003
203
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So 399,999 is good and 400,000 is bad?

He did not say good he said growing, can you read. If you want i'll call you on the phone and read it to you since you and your pals can't.
 

SilentZero

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2003
5,158
0
76
I wouldn't call this "great" news, but it certainly is an improvment.

And all news networks spin...even on occassion O'Reilly. ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,937
3,741
126
Good news, chariots coming, good news chariots coming, good news chariots coming and I don't want um to leave me behind.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I would buy your argument if economic markets were that simple but they aren't. Medicine does the exact same with a variety of surrogate markers (blood pressure, body temp, heart rate, serum lipid levels) for health. But if your BP 139/89 (140/90 is high), temp 38C (38.1 is fever), pulse 99 (100 is tachcardic), total cholesterol 199 (200) . . . I would be looking for some interventions not giving you a pat on the back for looking good.

The only argument you can make is that the job market is improving. I believe the best surveys are implying that job layoffs have fallen off dramatically but new jobs have been slow to materialize. Accordingly, this most recent jobs report is best described as . . . "well it could be worse." I guess the President will call that "good", since his re-employment in 2004 depends largely on a recovery that is beyond his control.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
charrison
not to argue the 400,000 issue but,

one must include 'ceteris paribus' because it could be a zero growth and 300,000 went to unemployment the result of technological innovation or sales of Chinese finger torture things.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bowfinger,
The only way I think the 'jobs' statistics should be presented is to footnote the variables.. give the numbers monthly and ytd. Do it by new jobs and jobs lost.
show the total workforce and what it was last month... deriving a net gain or loss in jobs.
Show the unemployed roles total and as above what it was.
show the population increase for those who reach working age.. 18, 21, 24.
and the $ value per hour of the new jobs gained and lost..
With this data one can conclude..
Example only...
we increased jobs by 10000, had an increase in Unemployed roles and had an increase to first time job seekers.. and if the $ value of the jobs gained is 8$ we can reasonably assume we know who got the jobs and who fell off Unemployment insurance and are spending their 401k to stimulate the economy..

I didn't think this through.. there may be other things to add.
The idea of putting $ figures to job loss/gain sounds good but isn't very realistic though. "new" jobs aren't only from new businesses, so how would you calculate expansion of existing? Say someone was laid off from a $15/hr job then takes a $12 job at an established company due to expansion. How would that get reported? Do people who file for unemployment report how much they make at their new job when they go off of unemployment? - no, you just see it as a fall off in unemployment. Maybe it could be done but it wouldn't be that accurate.
It'd be different if we were all tracked by individual serial numbers and the gov't had access to all of our info and could track it all directly;) Anyone ready for their implant?:D

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,937
3,741
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bowfinger,
The only way I think the 'jobs' statistics should be presented is to footnote the variables.. give the numbers monthly and ytd. Do it by new jobs and jobs lost.
show the total workforce and what it was last month... deriving a net gain or loss in jobs.
Show the unemployed roles total and as above what it was.
show the population increase for those who reach working age.. 18, 21, 24.
and the $ value per hour of the new jobs gained and lost..
With this data one can conclude..
Example only...
we increased jobs by 10000, had an increase in Unemployed roles and had an increase to first time job seekers.. and if the $ value of the jobs gained is 8$ we can reasonably assume we know who got the jobs and who fell off Unemployment insurance and are spending their 401k to stimulate the economy..

I didn't think this through.. there may be other things to add.
The idea of putting $ figures to job loss/gain sounds good but isn't very realistic though. "new" jobs aren't only from new businesses, so how would you calculate expansion of existing? Say someone was laid off from a $15/hr job then takes a $12 job at an established company due to expansion. How would that get reported? Do people who file for unemployment report how much they make at their new job when they go off of unemployment? - no, you just see it as a fall off in unemployment. Maybe it could be done but it wouldn't be that accurate.
It'd be different if we were all tracked by individual serial numbers and the gov't had access to all of our info and could track it all directly;) Anyone ready for their implant?:D

CkG
If it makes me happy, sure why not. :D :D :D :D

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would buy your argument if economic markets were that simple but they aren't. Medicine does the exact same with a variety of surrogate markers (blood pressure, body temp, heart rate, serum lipid levels) for health. But if your BP 139/89 (140/90 is high), temp 38C (38.1 is fever), pulse 99 (100 is tachcardic), total cholesterol 199 (200) . . . I would be looking for some interventions not giving you a pat on the back for looking good.

The only argument you can make is that the job market is improving. I believe the best surveys are implying that job layoffs have fallen off dramatically but new jobs have been slow to materialize. Accordingly, this most recent jobs report is best described as . . . "well it could be worse." I guess the President will call that "good", since his re-employment in 2004 depends largely on a recovery that is beyond his control.
Argue with the economist.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bowfinger,
The only way I think the 'jobs' statistics should be presented is to footnote the variables.. give the numbers monthly and ytd. Do it by new jobs and jobs lost.
show the total workforce and what it was last month... deriving a net gain or loss in jobs.
Show the unemployed roles total and as above what it was.
show the population increase for those who reach working age.. 18, 21, 24.
and the $ value per hour of the new jobs gained and lost..
With this data one can conclude..
Example only...
we increased jobs by 10000, had an increase in Unemployed roles and had an increase to first time job seekers.. and if the $ value of the jobs gained is 8$ we can reasonably assume we know who got the jobs and who fell off Unemployment insurance and are spending their 401k to stimulate the economy..

I didn't think this through.. there may be other things to add.
The idea of putting $ figures to job loss/gain sounds good but isn't very realistic though. "new" jobs aren't only from new businesses, so how would you calculate expansion of existing? Say someone was laid off from a $15/hr job then takes a $12 job at an established company due to expansion. How would that get reported? Do people who file for unemployment report how much they make at their new job when they go off of unemployment? - no, you just see it as a fall off in unemployment. Maybe it could be done but it wouldn't be that accurate.
It'd be different if we were all tracked by individual serial numbers and the gov't had access to all of our info and could track it all directly;) Anyone ready for their implant?:D

CkG
If it makes me happy, sure why not. :D :D :D :D
Exactly what is wrong with us humans. Feelings alone don't make things right, the combinating of feeling and logical wisdom is a more proper way of handling things. I'm sure you(moony) already know that but I just had to express my thoughts on "feelings" and how they rule a person's mind. Feeling without thought is like trying to fly a kite on a calm day...you may get the kite up in the sky but it'll soon come crashing back down;)

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CAD,
We know there is lots of reporting done by business. When a person goes on UI we know his wage he just left. When a new job opens we know we have to report the new hire to comply with various statutes. Including the rate of pay is easy. New business creation does not fill out a census right away. They may not even apply for an EIN and use the sole prop.'s SSN.. etc. This data is derived from the 941 submittals which require the inclusion of #ee's per month along with the $numbers in gross. All I suggest is doable. In california the only forms that actually list ee and $ is the state de6 and the w2.

edit:
All new hires of new or existing business is the same for total workers employed. Creating new jobs is reported via a census by industry.. but, it lags big time the start of operations. The real information comes from as I said above.. 941, state reporting.
I fill out these forms and know it would not be a biggie.
You wonder about folks going to work from UI. There is no document federal that deals with this. CA. uses only a questioneer to ask if wages were paid during periods where UI was also drawn. I incorporated the company I work for effective Jan 1 '02 and I've not seen a census. Because we report by employee to the state the feds get this data and that is how they can deduce the New and the existing ee's.

Look at all these nifty numbers.. wonder where they came from..
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Sternfan
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So 399,999 is good and 400,000 is bad?

He did not say good he said growing, can you read. If you want i'll call you on the phone and read it to you since you and your pals can't.
growing one would presume equals good and contracting equals bad regarding the economy. If this is not the case maybe BBD can call me when you've called him..
I'm not trying to tick you off.. If I have.. sorry..

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good news, chariots coming, good news chariots coming, good news chariots coming and I don't want um to leave me behind.

They are comming toward you... I guess.. so you left from where they left from and you left them behind.. I guess the bad news is in the fact that 'they' still use chariots... like our economists.. :)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Argue with the economist.
Is that The Economist or the economist that picked 400K? I love The Economist but even good media occasionally prints dribble.

I forgot who dared question me but let me save you some minutes on Friends and Family plan:

Title of thread . . . Great news today on the economy
Created On 10/09/2003 6:01 PM by Sternfan

Comment #1 . . . I never see much positive news here so I thought I would start posting some. I know some on this site will hate to hear something good but I say TO BAD!

Comment #2 . . . What it means is things are getting better what part of that don't you understand? Are you telling me even during the hay days of Clinton new job claims were zero. Some good news lately and yet you can't see it. Just like I said some on this forum will hate it and I was 100% right.

Charrison joins the fray . . . Numbers less than 400k indicate the employment market is expanding. This is good news...

Pertinent retort to criticism . . . Sorry you don't get it, have a nice life. why don't you go read the foreskin thread, maybe bali can't explain that to you.

Admittedly, the original article did NOT use the term good . . . it does indeed reference a growing economy and various indicators that are improving. Accordingly, why don't you switch your thread title to reflect the actual content of the article?





 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
The economy is bound to get better. It simply does all on it's own. Of course Bush supporters will claim it was his policies. I would say that it improves in spite of them. Regardless, look to see employment rise. The telling thing will be the types of jobs as a whole. People who earned 70k taking 30k jobs is NOT a good thing. Real income is slipping I believe (unless you are senior management who in the worst of times managed to secure a 66% average pay increase in one year. Go figure).

Anyway, the proof of recovery is in the details, which I imagine we will not see for quite a while.
 

Sternfan

Senior member
May 24, 2003
203
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Argue with the economist.
Is that The Economist or the economist that picked 400K? I love The Economist but even good media occasionally prints dribble.

I forgot who dared question me but let me save you some minutes on Friends and Family plan:

Title of thread . . . Great news today on the economy
Created On 10/09/2003 6:01 PM by Sternfan

Comment #1 . . . I never see much positive news here so I thought I would start posting some. I know some on this site will hate to hear something good but I say TO BAD!

Comment #2 . . . What it means is things are getting better what part of that don't you understand? Are you telling me even during the hay days of Clinton new job claims were zero. Some good news lately and yet you can't see it. Just like I said some on this forum will hate it and I was 100% right.

Charrison joins the fray . . . Numbers less than 400k indicate the employment market is expanding. This is good news...

Pertinent retort to criticism . . . Sorry you don't get it, have a nice life. why don't you go read the foreskin thread, maybe bali can't explain that to you.

Admittedly, the original article did NOT use the term good . . . it does indeed reference a growing economy and various indicators that are improving. Accordingly, why don't you switch your thread title to reflect the actual content of the article?

Happy now

Why copy and paste and why only Me and Charrison why not paste some of your Lib buddies comments. How about moony poems or big words. What was the point of this post. Is there a way to close this thread it started with some good news and turned into this. You have all become so transparent and blinded by your ideology.
 

Sternfan

Senior member
May 24, 2003
203
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The economy is bound to get better. It simply does all on it's own. Of course Bush supporters will claim it was his policies. I would say that it improves in spite of them. Regardless, look to see employment rise. The telling thing will be the types of jobs as a whole. People who earned 70k taking 30k jobs is NOT a good thing. Real income is slipping I believe (unless you are senior management who in the worst of times managed to secure a 66% average pay increase in one year. Go figure).

Anyway, the proof of recovery is in the details, which I imagine we will not see for quite a while.

I am not sure if you were one of the many on this site who blamed Bush for the economy even though the NAS lost over 50% of its value before he even was in office but now things are looking better and he gets no credit, stop and think about that for a minute before flamming me or calling me names ALL OF YOU.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The economy is bound to get better. It simply does all on it's own. Of course Bush supporters will claim it was his policies. I would say that it improves in spite of them. Regardless, look to see employment rise. The telling thing will be the types of jobs as a whole. People who earned 70k taking 30k jobs is NOT a good thing. Real income is slipping I believe (unless you are senior management who in the worst of times managed to secure a 66% average pay increase in one year. Go figure).

Anyway, the proof of recovery is in the details, which I imagine we will not see for quite a while.
The only problem is, the economic reports indicate that income is rising as well....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Sternfan
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The economy is bound to get better. It simply does all on it's own. Of course Bush supporters will claim it was his policies. I would say that it improves in spite of them. Regardless, look to see employment rise. The telling thing will be the types of jobs as a whole. People who earned 70k taking 30k jobs is NOT a good thing. Real income is slipping I believe (unless you are senior management who in the worst of times managed to secure a 66% average pay increase in one year. Go figure).

Anyway, the proof of recovery is in the details, which I imagine we will not see for quite a while.

I am not sure if you were one of the many on this site who blamed Bush for the economy even though the NAS lost over 50% of its value before he even was in office but now things are looking better and he gets no credit, stop and think about that for a minute before flamming me or calling me names ALL OF YOU.

I was one saying that Presidents get both too much credit and too much blame for economies. That goes for Clinton, Carter, Regan. All of them. I believe you were addressing others though about calling you names.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY