Jobless Claims on the Rise

[ReiAyanami]

as 70,000 CA grocery workers who've been on strike for the past 2 and 1/2 months some of them are finally getting a clue...

albertsons profit dropped 50% reported last week and management still is unfazed. good luck to both sides...

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What is the problem with 3 million plus number? Are you guys claiming that the jobless numbers "Under Bush" as you want to say is under 3 million?

NO IT IS NOT. I thought CAD said you figured out the error of your ways. Start reading, then start opining and refuting.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

They claim that the Unemployed number is below 3 million, never even hit 3 million and whatever number they believe is going down everyday.

- Dave

Does not equal me saying

"And the 3M jobs thing...well it might have been true a while back but to say the current numbers are 3M would be a falsehood." Because that was in response to an assertion that job loss numbers under Bush - NOT UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS. Unemployment figures are different than job loss numbers. figured it out yet Dave? Two different sets of numbers and stats.

Gaard - now where is that quote again?

CkG

 

[heartsurgeon]

Yea and their Wages went UP too.

actually, since the beginning of the Bush Administration to now, average hourly wages have increased from $14.02/hr to $15.46/hr.

that's a $2000 a year increase in income.

this is according to the Dept of Labor employment statistics.

stating something sarcastically works only if your statement isn't actually true!
you need to actually have facts rather than just "feelings" about something, before you start to debate an issue intelligently.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Yea and their Wages went UP too.

actually, since the beginning of the Bush Administration to now, average hourly wages have increased from $14.02/hr to $15.46/hr.

that's a $2000 a year increase in income.

this is according to the Dept of Labor employment statistics.

stating something sarcastically works only if your statement isn't actually true!
you need to actually have facts rather than just "feelings" about something, before you start to debate an issue intelligently.

Walmart is paying better these days?

 

[heartsurgeon]

Walmart is paying better these days?

i don't know what walmart pays...do you?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Walmart is paying better these days?

i don't know what walmart pays...do you?

$324 week for 38 hr workweek. $8.50 hr.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Walmart is paying better these days?

i don't know what walmart pays...do you?

$324 week for 38 hr workweek. $8.50 hr.

I guess most people are not working at walmart then.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heartsurgeon-

"actually, since the beginning of the Bush Administration to now, average hourly wages have increased from $14.02/hr to $15.46/hr.

that's a $2000 a year increase in income.

this is according to the Dept of Labor employment statistics."

To say that I'm skeptical would be an understatement... Link that up, OK?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Walmart is paying better these days?

i don't know what walmart pays...do you?

$324 week for 38 hr workweek. $8.50 hr.

I guess most people are not working at walmart then.

No, they have plenty of workers, you heard the AT Experts, this is the new America Rich.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Walmart is paying better these days?

i don't know what walmart pays...do you?

$324 week for 38 hr workweek. $8.50 hr.

I guess most people are not working at walmart then.

No, they have plenty of workers, you heard the AT Experts, this is the new America Rich.

We heard it here alright. Not only can Dave not read, but he also can't follow a logical conversation. Your lack of intelligence knows no bounds Dave.

 

[LunarRay]

Hocus Pocus..

"What seemed like a revving California job market in October turned out to be a misfire, the state's Employment Development Department reported yesterday.

In October, the state said it added 35,000 jobs, which economists read as the first strong signal that job growth was becoming part of the economic rebound.

Yet November's jobs report, released yesterday, seemed to dispute that, showing a loss of 14,400 jobs during the month. Even the state acknowledged yesterday that the October job count might have been overstated.

The unemployment rate still managed to drop from 6.7 percent in October to 6.4 percent in November because 72,000 workers left the civilian labor force, according to the state.

"There's no good reason that 70,000 people would have dropped out of the labor force," said Stephen Levy, an economist for the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy. "It just makes no sense."

Typically, retirees, relocating workers and discouraged workers account for the bulk of shrinkage in the labor force."


Linksville

 

[heartsurgeon]

To say that I'm skeptical would be an understatement... Link that up, OK?

2003 labor statistics
2001 labor statistics

read it and be educated...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

To say that I'm skeptical would be an understatement... Link that up, OK?

2003 labor statistics
2001 labor statistics

read it and be educated...

Hehe, do you even understand the figure yourself? For example, take Nov. average PRODUCTION WORKERS weekly salary from 1993 to 2003 and look at the % growth:

Year avg wage % growth
1993 11.14
1994 11.43 2.60%
1995 11.77 2.97%
1996 12.19 3.57%
1997 12.7 4.18%
1998 13.16 3.62%
1999 13.63 3.57%
2000 14.22 4.33%
2001 14.7 3.38%
2002 15.14 2.99%
2003 15.46 2.11%

The last few years has one of the lest historical growth. And don't forget to look at the average hours worked for those workers, you don't get paid unless you work right? The last couple of years, the average hours was 33.8 vs 34.2+ in the 1990's. That's a clear indication that there are less work available.

Oh and about the number of jobs lost by Bush since he took office debate we have in the other thread before it was locked. Every economist in the US look at NONFARM Employement which is 130,174,000 in 2003 and 132,129,000 in 2001 Jan. There is your 2 million jobs.

Go educate yourself.

 

[heartsurgeon]

let me get this right...you claimed i was wrong when i said average hourly wages have increased from 2001 to 2003,
then you start talking about the rate of increase in hourly wages in 2003 is less than in 2001.
As far as i can tell, you agreed with me that wages increased..bravo! you can read.

average hours was 33.8 vs 34.2+ in the 1990's. That's a clear indication that there are less work available.

lets do some simple math.. 34.2-33.8= 0.4 hours/week "less work"
hummm..thats 24 minutes a week less work, or 1 % less work. That's your clear indication there is less work?

NONFARM Employement which is 130,174,000 in 2003 and 132,129,000 in 2001 Jan. There is your 2 million jobs.

as i have stated before, and is clearly stated on the Labor Department site - the total number of employed persons has increased while Bush has been president. Nothing you have stated refutes this fact.

you reading skills are improving, comprehension and math skills leave room for improvement.

 

[boran]

lets do some simple math.. 34.2-33.8= 0.4 hours/week "less work"
hummm..thats 24 minutes a week less work, or 1 % less work. That's your clear indication there is less work?

lets do some economic math, 1% less work means 1 in every 100 ppls looses a job ...

now that's a HUUUGE amount, so methinks yer 1% is off a bit.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
let me get this right...you claimed i was wrong when i said average hourly wages have increased from 2001 to 2003,
then you start talking about the rate of increase in hourly wages in 2003 is less than in 2001.
As far as i can tell, you agreed with me that wages increased..bravo! you can read.

average hours was 33.8 vs 34.2+ in the 1990's. That's a clear indication that there are less work available.

lets do some simple math.. 34.2-33.8= 0.4 hours/week "less work"
hummm..thats 24 minutes a week less work, or 1 % less work. That's your clear indication there is less work?

NONFARM Employement which is 130,174,000 in 2003 and 132,129,000 in 2001 Jan. There is your 2 million jobs.

as i have stated before, and is clearly stated on the Labor Department site - the total number of employed persons has increased while Bush has been president. Nothing you have stated refutes this fact.

you reading skills are improving, comprehension and math skills leave room for improvement.

Hehe, don't put word in my mouth, I never said wage increased or decreased. I am just here to point out the number you cited don't mean anything unless you do a comparision. And the analysis does indicate an unfavorable rate of wage increase and job condition.

Yeah, and that 1% less hour worked is enough to offset the 2003 wage increase by 50%. (1% out of 2.11% in Which makes that wage increase one of the lowest in past 10 years.

And if you feel good looking at some figure that no one else looks at, by all means look at the total number employed while everyone else on the Wall St. and every economist look at the non-farm payroll statistics that is released every month.

Anyone can pull some number out of the Internet, anyone can pick and choose to look at the number they like, but does it mean they know what those number represent and what the reality is?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
let me get this right...you claimed i was wrong when i said average hourly wages have increased from 2001 to 2003,
then you start talking about the rate of increase in hourly wages in 2003 is less than in 2001.
As far as i can tell, you agreed with me that wages increased..bravo! you can read.

average hours was 33.8 vs 34.2+ in the 1990's. That's a clear indication that there are less work available.

lets do some simple math.. 34.2-33.8= 0.4 hours/week "less work"
hummm..thats 24 minutes a week less work, or 1 % less work. That's your clear indication there is less work?

NONFARM Employement which is 130,174,000 in 2003 and 132,129,000 in 2001 Jan. There is your 2 million jobs.

as i have stated before, and is clearly stated on the Labor Department site - the total number of employed persons has increased while Bush has been president. Nothing you have stated refutes this fact.

you reading skills are improving, comprehension and math skills leave room for improvement.

Hehe, don't put word in my mouth, I never said wage increased or decreased. I am just here to point out the number you cited don't mean anything unless you do a comparision. And the analysis does indicate an unfavorable rate of wage increase and job condition.

Yeah, and that 1% less hour worked is enough to offset the 2003 wage increase by 50%. (1% out of 2.11% in Which makes that wage increase one of the lowest in past 10 years.

And if you feel good looking at some figure that no one else looks at, by all means look at the total number employed while everyone else on the Wall St. and every economist look at the non-farm payroll statistics that is released every month.

Anyone can pull some number out of the Internet, anyone can pick and choose to look at the number they like, but does it mean they know what those number represent and what the reality is?

Right just like you know that the rate of change percentages for wages you posted don't tell the whole story either - right?
But yes - like as with a different thread that was recently postedroll ) numbers and graphs can be presented in many different ways depending upon you intent

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Isn't 400k the magic number for unemployment? Anything under that is considered acceptable?

 

[rjain]

tnitsuj: to the ADD masses, yes.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Isn't 400k the magic number for unemployment? Anything under that is considered acceptable?

You are talking about the weekly jobless insurance claim. People who are unemployed may or may not claim that insurance. 400k is kinda the magic number but like everything else it is just a small part of the whole picture and doesn't really mean much by itself.

 

[rjain]

They just smooth the numbers so that 400k is the rate that is equal to the normal rate of job creation. Kinda goofy, if you ask me. The people fixating on that number must have some strange fetish.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rjain
They just smooth the numbers so that 400k is the rate that is equal to the normal rate of job creation. Kinda goofy, if you ask me. The people fixating on that number must have some strange fetish.

There's a few of those in here, you seemed to be in that club for a while, welcome back. I thought you were part of a Tag Team with DirtBoy

 

[gordy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Walmart is paying better these days?

i don't know what walmart pays...do you?

$324 week for 38 hr workweek. $8.50 hr.

<loud wrong answer gameshow buzzer>

stepdaughter makin' 11.25 @ wal*mart (3rd shift) regular shift a buck less

</loud wrong answer gameshow buzzer>

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rjain
They just smooth the numbers so that 400k is the rate that is equal to the normal rate of job creation. Kinda goofy, if you ask me. The people fixating on that number must have some strange fetish.

There's a few of those in here, you seemed to be in that club for a while, welcome back. I thought you were part of a Tag Team with DirtBoy

I make one post in this thread not related to this topic you just mentioned and I get singled out. ::shakes head:: Pay attention Dave. I have never gone around saying anything about 400k jobs.