Job cuts thread: 4-18-05 249,800 jobs cut in Jan-April

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..will get plenty worse as eco-alarmism becomes public policy in the US. Many more US companies will flee the green fog of eco-fascism. It's a world market. Plenty of places to relocate to with rational eco-policies.

Congrats, you are the reverse mirror image of the OP.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I used to have an economy thread where it was argued that the economy was great.

Now with the Fed rocking on their heels and no one of any consequence arguing that the economy tanked I will just keep a takky of the latest job cuts.

I guess, since I'm in an area that seems to be experiencing economic growth, I haven't been following the jobless rates. Is it really getting that bad?

Just out of curiosity...what is the current US unemployment rate?

How does the US unemployment rate stack up against other countries? Anyone know where to find the numbers for Japan, China, India, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Canada...
I'd just like to see a comparison.

The numbers are bogus anyway.

Just keep enjoying taking the old union jobs down there in the south.

If the numbers are bogus then how the hell can you say how bad it is?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: alchemize
And it only took what - 5 years for your recession predication to come true? How are you not rich with this economic foresight?

I predict *booming voice* another recession someday after this one!

There was a recession in 2003? The last recession was in the early 90s.

So it wasn't officially a recession after the .com bubble burst and the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (serious question).

Yeah isnt that funny? Our economy lost 5+ TRILLION in two months in 2001, and people are predicting the collapse of our economy because of 1 trillion in losses stemming from loans that probably shouldnt have been made anyway. Unbelievable.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I used to have an economy thread where it was argued that the economy was great.

Now with the Fed rocking on their heels and no one of any consequence arguing that the economy tanked I will just keep a takky of the latest job cuts.

I guess, since I'm in an area that seems to be experiencing economic growth, I haven't been following the jobless rates. Is it really getting that bad?

Just out of curiosity...what is the current US unemployment rate?

How does the US unemployment rate stack up against other countries? Anyone know where to find the numbers for Japan, China, India, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Canada...
I'd just like to see a comparison.

The numbers are bogus anyway.

Just keep enjoying taking the old union jobs down there in the south.

If the numbers are bogus then how the hell can you say how bad it is?

How can you show it's golden?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I used to have an economy thread where it was argued that the economy was great.

Now with the Fed rocking on their heels and no one of any consequence arguing that the economy tanked I will just keep a takky of the latest job cuts.

I guess, since I'm in an area that seems to be experiencing economic growth, I haven't been following the jobless rates. Is it really getting that bad?

Just out of curiosity...what is the current US unemployment rate?

How does the US unemployment rate stack up against other countries? Anyone know where to find the numbers for Japan, China, India, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Canada...
I'd just like to see a comparison.

The numbers are bogus anyway.

Just keep enjoying taking the old union jobs down there in the south.

If the numbers are bogus then how the hell can you say how bad it is?

How can you show it's golden?

Typical sidestep. Its all public record dimwit. Look it up yourself. Even if I did put together a 2 page response proving it, you still wouldnt provide anything other than your usual bitter remarks.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I used to have an economy thread where it was argued that the economy was great.

Now with the Fed rocking on their heels and no one of any consequence arguing that the economy tanked I will just keep a takky of the latest job cuts.

I guess, since I'm in an area that seems to be experiencing economic growth, I haven't been following the jobless rates. Is it really getting that bad?

Just out of curiosity...what is the current US unemployment rate?

How does the US unemployment rate stack up against other countries? Anyone know where to find the numbers for Japan, China, India, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Canada...
I'd just like to see a comparison.

The numbers are bogus anyway.

Just keep enjoying taking the old union jobs down there in the south.

If the numbers are bogus then how the hell can you say how bad it is?

How can you show it's golden?

Typical sidestep. Its all public record dimwit. Look it up yourself. Even if I did put together a 2 page response proving it, you still wouldnt provide anything other than your usual bitter remarks.

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Our economy lost 5+ TRILLION in two months in 2001, and people are predicting the collapse of our economy because of 1 trillion in losses stemming from loans that probably shouldnt have been made anyway. Unbelievable.

You're the one spouting nonsense numbers.

 

[TallBill]

Not sure why there is even a point to argue. A recession is defined as:

A decline in business activity. Often defined as two consecutive quarters with a real fall in gross national production.

It's a universal term. Decrease in GDP two quarters in a row.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I used to have an economy thread where it was argued that the economy was great.

Now with the Fed rocking on their heels and no one of any consequence arguing that the economy tanked I will just keep a takky of the latest job cuts.

I guess, since I'm in an area that seems to be experiencing economic growth, I haven't been following the jobless rates. Is it really getting that bad?

Just out of curiosity...what is the current US unemployment rate?

How does the US unemployment rate stack up against other countries? Anyone know where to find the numbers for Japan, China, India, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Canada...
I'd just like to see a comparison.

The numbers are bogus anyway.

Just keep enjoying taking the old union jobs down there in the south.

If the numbers are bogus then how the hell can you say how bad it is?

How can you show it's golden?

Typical sidestep. Its all public record dimwit. Look it up yourself. Even if I did put together a 2 page response proving it, you still wouldnt provide anything other than your usual bitter remarks.

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Our economy lost 5+ TRILLION in two months in 2001, and people are predicting the collapse of our economy because of 1 trillion in losses stemming from loans that probably shouldnt have been made anyway. Unbelievable.

You're the one spouting nonsense numbers.

Really?

The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies


Now prove your point. How are YOUR bullshit numbers justified? And quit sidestepping.

 

[borosp1]

Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich pays 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Any ATers still in denial?

4-5-2008 Huge job losses set off recession alarms

It's no longer a question of recession or not. Now it's how deep and how long. Workers' pink slips stacked ever higher in March as jittery employers slashed 80,000 jobs, the most in five years, and the national unemployment rate climbed to 5.1 percent.

Job losses are nearing the staggering level of a quarter-million this year in just three months.

Like I said denial.

Thanks for being so out in the open with your denial anyway.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.


No, we don't know precisely what the real numbers are. What we do know is that the Unemployment statistics underreport the number of people who want to work but have not found employment, and that the overall Employment statistics overstate employment since they count part-time employment and underemployment equally with good full-time jobs.

The Unemployment stat ignores those who do not meet the BLS definition of "actively seeking employment" for one reason or another. One can debate whether those people should be counted or not, but the fact remains there are a lot of people who want jobs and are available for employment but are not counted as unemployed.

The Employment stat ignores the quantity and quality of employment. Let's assume you used to make $100K per year as an engineer, but got laid off two years ago and haven't been able to find a comparable professional position. No worries. Did you land that plum $8 per hour, no-benefits greeter job at Wal-Mart? Guess what, the BLS now counts you as employed again. No, not even a crappy Wal-Mart job? OK, did you earn $5 for mowing someone's lawn last week? Congratulations, you still count as employed for BLS purposes. Once again, one might make the case that such people should technically count as employed, but it certainly isn't what most Americans have in mind when the government talks about how great our employment numbers look.

We also know that the BLS made a reporting change a few years ago (January, 2003, IIRC -- I've documented it here before) that resulted in a one-time increase in the Employment stat of almost one million jobs. There wasn't an actual increase in employed, mind you, just a larger number on the report. That's not terribly important when comparing this month's Employment to last month's. It does become important when someone from the Bush administration touts the five million jobs added since they took office. One million of them are a reporting artifact, and another 1.5 million of them (again, IIRC) are part-time, plus due to population growth, the United States needs to add about 1.8 million jobs per year just to break even.

In other words, as others have already pointed out, when the government talks about Unemployment and Employment, their picture has been artificially enhanced to make things look better than they really are. It's sort of like Hollywood, only with statistics instead of saline.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.


No, we don't know precisely what the real numbers are. What we do know is that the Unemployment statistics underreport the number of people who want to work but have not found employment, and that the overall Employment statistics overstate employment since they count part-time employment and underemployment equally with good full-time jobs.

The Unemployment stat ignores those who do not meet the BLS definition of "actively seeking employment" for one reason or another. One can debate whether those people should be counted or not, but the fact remains there are a lot of people who want jobs and are available for employment but are not counted as unemployed.

The Employment stat ignores the quantity and quality of employment. Let's assume you used to make $100K per year as an engineer, but got laid off two years ago and haven't been able to find a comparable professional position. No worries. Did you land that plum $8 per hour, no-benefits greeter job at Wal-Mart? Guess what, the BLS now counts you as employed again. No, not even a crappy Wal-Mart job? OK, did you earn $5 for mowing someone's lawn last week? Congratulations, you still count as employed for BLS purposes. Once again, one might make the case that such people should technically count as employed, but it certainly isn't what most Americans have in mind when the government talks about how great our employment numbers look.

We also know that the BLS made a reporting change a few years ago (January, 2003, IIRC -- I've documented it here before) that resulted in a one-time increase in the Employment stat of almost one million jobs. There wasn't an actual increase in employed, mind you, just a larger number on the report. That's not terribly important when comparing this month's Employment to last month's. It does become important when someone from the Bush administration touts the five million jobs added since they took office. One million of them are a reporting artifact, and another 1.5 million of them (again, IIRC) are part-time, plus due to population growth, the United States needs to add about 1.8 million jobs per year just to break even.

In other words, as others have already pointed out, when the government talks about Unemployment and Employment, their picture has been artificially enhanced to make things look better than they really are. It's sort of like Hollywood, only with statistics instead of saline.

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Any ATers still in denial?

4-5-2008 Huge job losses set off recession alarms

It's no longer a question of recession or not. Now it's how deep and how long. Workers' pink slips stacked ever higher in March as jittery employers slashed 80,000 jobs, the most in five years, and the national unemployment rate climbed to 5.1 percent.

Job losses are nearing the staggering level of a quarter-million this year in just three months.

Like I said denial.

Thanks for being so out in the open with your denial anyway.

Hey dumbass. Guess where Yahoo got their numbers from.

Thats right. The same place you claim puts out bullshit numbers Now tell us, oh financial guru, where do we go for REAL numbers? Hmmm?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.


No, we don't know precisely what the real numbers are. What we do know is that the Unemployment statistics underreport the number of people who want to work but have not found employment, and that the overall Employment statistics overstate employment since they count part-time employment and underemployment equally with good full-time jobs.

The Unemployment stat ignores those who do not meet the BLS definition of "actively seeking employment" for one reason or another. One can debate whether those people should be counted or not, but the fact remains there are a lot of people who want jobs and are available for employment but are not counted as unemployed.

The Employment stat ignores the quantity and quality of employment. Let's assume you used to make $100K per year as an engineer, but got laid off two years ago and haven't been able to find a comparable professional position. No worries. Did you land that plum $8 per hour, no-benefits greeter job at Wal-Mart? Guess what, the BLS now counts you as employed again. No, not even a crappy Wal-Mart job? OK, did you earn $5 for mowing someone's lawn last week? Congratulations, you still count as employed for BLS purposes. Once again, one might make the case that such people should technically count as employed, but it certainly isn't what most Americans have in mind when the government talks about how great our employment numbers look.

We also know that the BLS made a reporting change a few years ago (January, 2003, IIRC -- I've documented it here before) that resulted in a one-time increase in the Employment stat of almost one million jobs. There wasn't an actual increase in employed, mind you, just a larger number on the report. That's not terribly important when comparing this month's Employment to last month's. It does become important when someone from the Bush administration touts the five million jobs added since they took office. One million of them are a reporting artifact, and another 1.5 million of them (again, IIRC) are part-time, plus due to population growth, the United States needs to add about 1.8 million jobs per year just to break even.

In other words, as others have already pointed out, when the government talks about Unemployment and Employment, their picture has been artificially enhanced to make things look better than they really are. It's sort of like Hollywood, only with statistics instead of saline.

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.

Hey! Fuck you too!

As to the rest of your thread, well...I never disagreed with what you said Lets say for the say of argument the unemployment rate is low. How low? I've asked Dave where to get REAL numbers...maybe you can tell us? Or something that shows by what percentage they are low? Anything? Lets say 30%. So, now were actually at 6 3/4%. Wow. Fuckin' depression!

 

[borosp1]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.


No, we don't know precisely what the real numbers are. What we do know is that the Unemployment statistics underreport the number of people who want to work but have not found employment, and that the overall Employment statistics overstate employment since they count part-time employment and underemployment equally with good full-time jobs.

The Unemployment stat ignores those who do not meet the BLS definition of "actively seeking employment" for one reason or another. One can debate whether those people should be counted or not, but the fact remains there are a lot of people who want jobs and are available for employment but are not counted as unemployed.

The Employment stat ignores the quantity and quality of employment. Let's assume you used to make $100K per year as an engineer, but got laid off two years ago and haven't been able to find a comparable professional position. No worries. Did you land that plum $8 per hour, no-benefits greeter job at Wal-Mart? Guess what, the BLS now counts you as employed again. No, not even a crappy Wal-Mart job? OK, did you earn $5 for mowing someone's lawn last week? Congratulations, you still count as employed for BLS purposes. Once again, one might make the case that such people should technically count as employed, but it certainly isn't what most Americans have in mind when the government talks about how great our employment numbers look.

We also know that the BLS made a reporting change a few years ago (January, 2003, IIRC -- I've documented it here before) that resulted in a one-time increase in the Employment stat of almost one million jobs. There wasn't an actual increase in employed, mind you, just a larger number on the report. That's not terribly important when comparing this month's Employment to last month's. It does become important when someone from the Bush administration touts the five million jobs added since they took office. One million of them are a reporting artifact, and another 1.5 million of them (again, IIRC) are part-time, plus due to population growth, the United States needs to add about 1.8 million jobs per year just to break even.

In other words, as others have already pointed out, when the government talks about Unemployment and Employment, their picture has been artificially enhanced to make things look better than they really are. It's sort of like Hollywood, only with statistics instead of saline.

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.

As to the rest of your thread, well...I never disagreed with what you said Lets say for the say of argument the unemployment rate is low. How low? I've asked Dave where to get REAL numbers...maybe you can tell us? Or something that shows by what percentage they are low? Anything? Lets say 30%. So, now were actually at 6 3/4%. Wow. Fuckin' depression!

Do you mean recesion not depression? Anyway.. Unemployment is only one concideration on how the economy and average workers are doing.

More importantly is cost of living and real wages which are stagnent for middle and lower econmomic class workers. While the people at the top, executives and highly compensated employees see there wages increasing..

Its not just that gas prices are going through the roof, but more importantly food prices have skyrocketed in the past year or so. Cost of eggs has gone up 25% in 1 year... which many people regard as a cheap staple in there diet.. Bread, milk, and other parishable goods all have gone up.

Good article on the state of affairs in this country:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...ref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: borosp1

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.


No, we don't know precisely what the real numbers are. What we do know is that the Unemployment statistics underreport the number of people who want to work but have not found employment, and that the overall Employment statistics overstate employment since they count part-time employment and underemployment equally with good full-time jobs.

The Unemployment stat ignores those who do not meet the BLS definition of "actively seeking employment" for one reason or another. One can debate whether those people should be counted or not, but the fact remains there are a lot of people who want jobs and are available for employment but are not counted as unemployed.

The Employment stat ignores the quantity and quality of employment. Let's assume you used to make $100K per year as an engineer, but got laid off two years ago and haven't been able to find a comparable professional position. No worries. Did you land that plum $8 per hour, no-benefits greeter job at Wal-Mart? Guess what, the BLS now counts you as employed again. No, not even a crappy Wal-Mart job? OK, did you earn $5 for mowing someone's lawn last week? Congratulations, you still count as employed for BLS purposes. Once again, one might make the case that such people should technically count as employed, but it certainly isn't what most Americans have in mind when the government talks about how great our employment numbers look.

We also know that the BLS made a reporting change a few years ago (January, 2003, IIRC -- I've documented it here before) that resulted in a one-time increase in the Employment stat of almost one million jobs. There wasn't an actual increase in employed, mind you, just a larger number on the report. That's not terribly important when comparing this month's Employment to last month's. It does become important when someone from the Bush administration touts the five million jobs added since they took office. One million of them are a reporting artifact, and another 1.5 million of them (again, IIRC) are part-time, plus due to population growth, the United States needs to add about 1.8 million jobs per year just to break even.

In other words, as others have already pointed out, when the government talks about Unemployment and Employment, their picture has been artificially enhanced to make things look better than they really are. It's sort of like Hollywood, only with statistics instead of saline.

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.

As to the rest of your thread, well...I never disagreed with what you said Lets say for the say of argument the unemployment rate is low. How low? I've asked Dave where to get REAL numbers...maybe you can tell us? Or something that shows by what percentage they are low? Anything? Lets say 30%. So, now were actually at 6 3/4%. Wow. Fuckin' depression!

Do you mean recesion not depression? Anyway.. Unemployment is only one concideration on how the economy and average workers are doing.

More importantly is cost of living and real wages which are stagnent for middle and lower econmomic class workers. While the people at the top, executives and highly compensated employees see there wages increasing..

Its not just that gas prices are going through the roof, but more importantly food prices have skyrocketed in the past year or so. Cost of eggs has gone up 25% in 1 year... which many people regard as a cheap staple in there diet.. Bread, milk, and other parishable goods all have gone up.

Good article on the state of affairs in this country:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...ref=slogin&oref=slogin

No I meant depression (sorry for not including the sarcasm tag).

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, show a time in our recent history where the following statement was false? "cost of living and real wages which are stagnent for middle and lower econmomic class workers. While the people at the top, executives and highly compensated employees see there wages increasing" When has this NOTbeen true? Why is now so special?

Gas prices meh. Skyrocket is an opinion, and not one held by me. Food, yes of course. But you have to understand why. In the last few years there has been such a push for alternative fuel that the free market said "OK", and as a result crops are being used for fuel instead of food. You cant have it both ways.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: borosp1
Actually the unemployment number is a little bogus. What they count is people on unemployment insurance. What happens is in this tough economy some people in certian sectors for sure cant find a job after 6 months of unemployments insurance. Right when they lost the insurance they get taken off the count as if they were employed. Thats where the numbers get scewed..

Also replacing a high paying job or a job where you are in the middle class for a crappy retail job for instance wich paid 1/5th your original salary counts like you are emplyed as well.

So in other words, because of this, we really dont know what the real number is. So why would we think it's so bad? It might not be afterall. Apparently we dont really know.

Right?

Congratulations! After considering your posts for the last few weeks, I believe you've taken the right-wing crown for most consistently asinine, dishonest, and blindly partisan tripe. You may now sit in the corner and wear your dunce cap with pride.


No, we don't know precisely what the real numbers are. What we do know is that the Unemployment statistics underreport the number of people who want to work but have not found employment, and that the overall Employment statistics overstate employment since they count part-time employment and underemployment equally with good full-time jobs.

The Unemployment stat ignores those who do not meet the BLS definition of "actively seeking employment" for one reason or another. One can debate whether those people should be counted or not, but the fact remains there are a lot of people who want jobs and are available for employment but are not counted as unemployed.

The Employment stat ignores the quantity and quality of employment. Let's assume you used to make $100K per year as an engineer, but got laid off two years ago and haven't been able to find a comparable professional position. No worries. Did you land that plum $8 per hour, no-benefits greeter job at Wal-Mart? Guess what, the BLS now counts you as employed again. No, not even a crappy Wal-Mart job? OK, did you earn $5 for mowing someone's lawn last week? Congratulations, you still count as employed for BLS purposes. Once again, one might make the case that such people should technically count as employed, but it certainly isn't what most Americans have in mind when the government talks about how great our employment numbers look.

We also know that the BLS made a reporting change a few years ago (January, 2003, IIRC -- I've documented it here before) that resulted in a one-time increase in the Employment stat of almost one million jobs. There wasn't an actual increase in employed, mind you, just a larger number on the report. That's not terribly important when comparing this month's Employment to last month's. It does become important when someone from the Bush administration touts the five million jobs added since they took office. One million of them are a reporting artifact, and another 1.5 million of them (again, IIRC) are part-time, plus due to population growth, the United States needs to add about 1.8 million jobs per year just to break even.

In other words, as others have already pointed out, when the government talks about Unemployment and Employment, their picture has been artificially enhanced to make things look better than they really are. It's sort of like Hollywood, only with statistics instead of saline.

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

Contract workers ARE counted among the Employed. I certainly didn't ignore them or suggest anything different. What was your point?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

So?

What's your point?

Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there making the bogus numbers correct?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

So?

What's your point?

Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there making the bogus numbers correct?

Once again, youre clueless.

Statistics for 2005

In February 2005, there were 10.3 million independent contractors (7.4 percent of total employment), 2.5 million on-call workers (1.8 percent of total employment), 1.2 million
temporary help agency workers (0.9 percent of total employment), and 813,000
workers provided by contract firms (0.6 percent of total employment).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

So?

What's your point?

Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there making the bogus numbers correct?

Once again, youre clueless.

Statistics for 2005

In February 2005, there were 10.3 million independent contractors (7.4 percent of total employment), 2.5 million on-call workers (1.8 percent of total employment), 1.2 million
temporary help agency workers (0.9 percent of total employment), and 813,000
workers provided by contract firms (0.6 percent of total employment).

That's nothing for a country of this population.

You fail as usual.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

So?

What's your point?

Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there making the bogus numbers correct?

Once again, youre clueless.

Statistics for 2005

In February 2005, there were 10.3 million independent contractors (7.4 percent of total employment), 2.5 million on-call workers (1.8 percent of total employment), 1.2 million
temporary help agency workers (0.9 percent of total employment), and 813,000
workers provided by contract firms (0.6 percent of total employment).

That's nothing for a country of this population.

You fail as usual.

haha ignoring your uninformed post one above mine "Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there "

and you wonder why people dont take you seriously :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

So?

What's your point?

Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there making the bogus numbers correct?

Once again, youre clueless.

Statistics for 2005

In February 2005, there were 10.3 million independent contractors (7.4 percent of total employment), 2.5 million on-call workers (1.8 percent of total employment), 1.2 million
temporary help agency workers (0.9 percent of total employment), and 813,000
workers provided by contract firms (0.6 percent of total employment).

That's nothing for a country of this population.

You fail as usual.

haha ignoring your uninformed post one above mine "Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there "

and you wonder why people dont take you seriously :roll:

He lumped all kinds together.

Not even a half hearted attempt at correct numbers which is no surprise considering the source.

Let's see you do better.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

So?

What's your point?

Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there making the bogus numbers correct?

Once again, youre clueless.

Statistics for 2005

In February 2005, there were 10.3 million independent contractors (7.4 percent of total employment), 2.5 million on-call workers (1.8 percent of total employment), 1.2 million
temporary help agency workers (0.9 percent of total employment), and 813,000
workers provided by contract firms (0.6 percent of total employment).

That's nothing for a country of this population.

You fail as usual.

haha ignoring your uninformed post one above mine "Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there "

and you wonder why people dont take you seriously :roll:

He lumped all kinds together.

Not even a half hearted attempt at correct numbers which is no surprise considering the source.

Let's see you do better.

No. He specifically stated contract workers are not included in the numbers. you specifically doubted that there were even 1.5 million in the US, to which, once again, I proved you wrong. Quit playing word games Dave. At least when Im wrong I admit it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Forgetting contract workers are we? Seems when people list what it doesn't "count" they forget contract workers - which is a pretty good chunk of people.

So?

What's your point?

Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there making the bogus numbers correct?

Once again, youre clueless.

Statistics for 2005

In February 2005, there were 10.3 million independent contractors (7.4 percent of total employment), 2.5 million on-call workers (1.8 percent of total employment), 1.2 million
temporary help agency workers (0.9 percent of total employment), and 813,000
workers provided by contract firms (0.6 percent of total employment).

That's nothing for a country of this population.

You fail as usual.

haha ignoring your uninformed post one above mine "Are you trying claim there is 1.5 million well paid contract workers out there "

and you wonder why people dont take you seriously :roll:

He lumped all kinds together.

Not even a half hearted attempt at correct numbers which is no surprise considering the source.

Let's see you do better.

No. He specifically stated contract workers are not included in the numbers. you specifically doubted that there were even 1.5 million in the US, to which, once again, I proved you wrong. Quit playing word games Dave. At least when Im wrong I admit it.

The numbers are still wrong. Wrong is wrong.