If Top20 stocks are removed from consideration, how did the economy do this last year?

[MadRat]

I have heard the theory that most of the top companies were pretty intermingled in their dealings and possibly the dismal stock season was more or less a result of their problems. How do I check the stats?

 

[glenn1]

The Wilshire 5000 index is a pretty good proxy for the economy as a whole, and it rocked in 2003.

 

[jeremy806]

Remember, the stock market does not equal the economy. Smaller (not publically held) business account for a very very significant portion of the economy. The stock market may have done well in 2003, but this has been one of the worst economic years in recent history. There have been massive layoffs, massive deficit spending, war, globl terrorism, and other problems.


So, bad is the answer.

Jeremy
806

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: jeremy806
Remember, the stock market does not equal the economy. Smaller (not publically held) business account for a very very significant portion of the economy. The stock market may have done well in 2003, but this has been one of the worst economic years in recent history. There have been massive layoffs, massive deficit spending, war, globl terrorism, and other problems.


So, bad is the answer.

Jeremy
806

"Massive" layoffs is kind of misleading.. unemployment is only 6%, that does not indicate MASSIVE layoffs.. shifting of jobs perhaps..

"Massive" deficit spending.. not really, its not that much more than past years to classify it as "Massive".. besides, you go into debt during a recession.. thats good economic sense.. (For a government). As a percentage of our GDP, the deficit is not MASSIVE.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: jeremy806
Remember, the stock market does not equal the economy. Smaller (not publically held) business account for a very very significant portion of the economy. The stock market may have done well in 2003, but this has been one of the worst economic years in recent history. There have been massive layoffs, massive deficit spending, war, globl terrorism, and other problems.


So, bad is the answer.

Jeremy
806

"Massive" layoffs is kind of misleading.. unemployment is only 6%, that does not indicate MASSIVE layoffs.. shifting of jobs perhaps..

"Massive" deficit spending.. not really, its not that much more than past years to classify it as "Massive".. besides, you go into debt during a recession.. thats good economic sense.. (For a government). As a percentage of our GDP, the deficit is not MASSIVE.

I have posted the real "Massive Layoffs", the 6% number is what is misleading. The Govt count is flat wrong and you know it.

At least you acknowledged the jobs have been sent overseas, that leaves the U.S. people unemployed unless a new Wal-mart opens near them and they can land the $8 hr job.

 

[glenn1]

Remember, the stock market does not equal the economy. Smaller (not publically held) business account for a very very significant portion of the economy. The stock market may have done well in 2003, but this has been one of the worst economic years in recent history. There have been massive layoffs, massive deficit spending, war, globl terrorism, and other problems.

What you say is correct, but if there's a better tool than the Wilshire to serve as a proxy for how the economy's doing, i don't know of it. It may not be the perfect tool but it's the closest one we have.

 

[heartsurgeon]

for actual FACTS, versus opinion...

check this site out...all the numbers/indicators you could dream of...interesting stuff

economic indicators

 

[chazzheatherly]

A quote by Crimson:
-Crimson
If I were given a gun, with only one bullet, and given the opportunity to shoot once without fear of consequence.. my trouble would be not in choosing whom to shoot, but rather how to line them all up to get them all with one bullet.

A Republican if ever I heard one.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674I have posted the real "Massive Layoffs", the 6% number is what is misleading. The Govt count is flat wrong and you know it.

How is it misleading? Do you think your data is more accurate than the BLS? haha Share with us your data, how you collected it and how it is more accurate. 6% unemployment is no big deal. Econominists agreed that when the economy is at 5% unemployment that we are considered to be at full employment. So that leaves us with 1%. 1 out of every 100 people is not working right now that wants to. That's hardly anything to worry about.

Unemployment is not 20% like it was during the Great Depression, which means our economy is not that bad off unlike some idiots who run around these days saying that we are in a depression.

At least you acknowledged the jobs have been sent overseas, that leaves the U.S. people unemployed unless a new Wal-mart opens near them and they can land the $8 hr job.

That's great! That means there is hope for you to get gainful employment after all.

 

[bigdog1218]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674I have posted the real "Massive Layoffs", the 6% number is what is misleading. The Govt count is flat wrong and you know it.

How is it misleading? Do you think your data is more accurate than the BLS? haha Share with us your data, how you collected it and how it is more accurate. 6% unemployment is no big deal. Econominists agreed that when the economy is at 5% unemployment that we are considered to be at full employment. So that leaves us with 1%. 1 out of every 100 people is not working right now that wants to. That's hardly anything to worry about.

Unemployment is not 20% like it was during the Great Depression, which means our economy is not that bad off unlike some idiots who run around these days saying that we are in a depression.

At least you acknowledged the jobs have been sent overseas, that leaves the U.S. people unemployed unless a new Wal-mart opens near them and they can land the $8 hr job.

That's great! That means there is hope for you to get gainful employment after all.

The number is misleading because it only accounts for people who previously had jobs are currently looking for new jobs, and are registered as unemployed. It doesn't account for college graduates who can't find jobs, and it doesn't account for people who were laid off and are no longer looking for a new job.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
The number is misleading because it only accounts for people who previously had jobs are currently looking for new jobs, and are registered as unemployed. It doesn't account for college graduates who can't find jobs, and it doesn't account for people who were laid off and are no longer looking for a new job.

I got news for you, you are wrong.

 

[bigdog1218]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
The number is misleading because it only accounts for people who previously had jobs are currently looking for new jobs, and are registered as unemployed. It doesn't account for college graduates who can't find jobs, and it doesn't account for people who were laid off and are no longer looking for a new job.

I got news for you, you are wrong.

???. You're kidding me right. Please stay away from any topics that have to do with the economy from now on, you just proved that anything you say is just plain ignorant.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
The number is misleading because it only accounts for people who previously had jobs are currently looking for new jobs, and are registered as unemployed. It doesn't account for college graduates who can't find jobs, and it doesn't account for people who were laid off and are no longer looking for a new job.

I got news for you, you are wrong.

???. You're kidding me right. Please stay away from any topics that have to do with the economy from now on, you just proved that anything you say is just plain ignorant.

From the US Dept of Labor Statistics

Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

You stand corrected.

 

[bigdog1218]

How do I stand corrected?

have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks

So you're saying if they are no longer looking for a new job, they aren't unemployed. Fortunately thats only 1.2 million people,Here,, including that alone would increase the unemployment rate to about 7%, thanks for proving one of my points.

Also this is great,

or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business

, so you work for 15 hours without getting paid and you are employed.

Also if you are currently looking for a full time job, and work at all, meaning 1 hour a week, you are counted as fully employed.

I still can't understand, you read the same report I did but still believe the numbers aren't misleading? Or were you blind and only looked for that one sentence believing it actually would help your argument.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
How do I stand corrected?

have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks

So you're saying if they are no longer looking for a new job, they aren't unemployed. Fortunately thats only 1.2 million people,Here,, including that alone would increase the unemployment rate to about 7%, thanks for proving one of my points.

Also this is great,

or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business

, so you work for 15 hours without getting paid and you are employed.

Also if you are currently looking for a full time job, and work at all, meaning 1 hour a week, you are counted as fully employed.

I still can't understand, you read the same report I did but still believe the numbers aren't misleading? Or were you blind and only looked for that one sentence believing it actually would help your argument.

There are many blind sheep in here that will follow off a cliff. Very sad.

 

[rjain]

So because I'm not making $100,000 a year and I'm not satisfied with that situation, should I be counted as unemployed? Is employment something to do with clear, objective facts or something to do with how warm and fuzzy they feel?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
How do I stand corrected?

have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks

So you're saying if they are no longer looking for a new job, they aren't unemployed. Fortunately thats only 1.2 million people,Here,, including that alone would increase the unemployment rate to about 7%, thanks for proving one of my points.

Also this is great,

or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business

, so you work for 15 hours without getting paid and you are employed.

Also if you are currently looking for a full time job, and work at all, meaning 1 hour a week, you are counted as fully employed.

I still can't understand, you read the same report I did but still believe the numbers aren't misleading? Or were you blind and only looked for that one sentence believing it actually would help your argument.

You said it doesn't count college graduates looking for work. Looks like you are wrong.

And if people are laid off and not looking for work, why does anyone care about them?? Obviously they don't want to work, so the statistic is accurate.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
There are many blind sheep in here that will follow off a cliff. Very sad.

There are people here who believe the economy is in a depression. That is an embarasement to the public education system and proof that they are a complete idiot.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
So you're saying if they are no longer looking for a new job, they aren't unemployed. Fortunately thats only 1.2 million people,Here,, including that alone would increase the unemployment rate to about 7%, thanks for proving one of my points.

It's pretty lame that you had to use my reference to make a point you couldn't prove on your own. Next time you get in an arugement, try to substantiate your own claims. If someone gives up looking for a job, then they obviously DON'T WANT TO WORK. Pretty cut and dry. If they wanted to work, they'd take the time to look. They must not be that bad off if they are able to stay at home and not work.

Also this is great,

or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business

, so you work for 15 hours without getting paid and you are employed.

Do you know what group of people that is mostly for? It's for children of small business owners, like teenagers. Not that significant anyways.

Also if you are currently looking for a full time job, and work at all, meaning 1 hour a week, you are counted as fully employed.

Nobody forces anyone to work for one hour per week. Pretty absurd don't you say? Talk about a week arguement. I don't know anybody who works one hour a week.

And if they are, then they are employed, because they choose to take the job.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I have heard the theory that most of the top companies were pretty intermingled in their dealings and possibly the dismal stock season was more or less a result of their problems. How do I check the stats?

Umm you don't necessarily judge the progress of the economy based on the stock markets performance. stock are just one of several equally important indicators.