S&P 500 at 4 year high

[ntdz]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050714/wall_street.html?.v=10

S&P 500 at 4 year high, DOW and Nasdaq both up today. The Dow and Nasdaq are both are at 2005 highs, closing in on 4 year highs. Oh, and btw, oil is down 4% today to below $58 a barrel, still ridiculously high however.

Combine this with 1.7% retail growth, .3% inflation (.1% with food/gas taken out), the fact that China is using less oil this year than last, and our deficit is shrinking rapidly, our country is looking pretty damn good!

 

[umbrella39]

for you

:beer: for my bottom line.

for the millions of Americans who aren't affluent enough to even pay their bills let alone worry about what the markets are doing.

 

[zendari]

Hope this continues. I just bought my first investments into a S&P 500 mutual fund this month.

Thank you President Bush and your administration!

 

[conjur]

Sure would be nice to see this growth help out the average person.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...afp/useconomyunemployment_050714144528

New jobless claims are up.


This growing economy is so far only benefiting corporate bottom-lines and CEOs portfolios.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
Sure would be nice to see this growth help out the average person.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...afp/useconomyunemployment_050714144528

New jobless claims are up.


This growing economy is so far only benefiting corporate bottom-lines and CEOs portfolios.

Conveniently ignore the fact there have been something like 3 million jobs created in the last year and half.

What were jobless claims at 2 years ago? I'm willing to bet worst than now.

 

[conjur]

And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur
And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

"The increase in seasonally adjusted initial claims was "primarily" due to temporary seasonal layoffs in the auto manufacturing industry, a Labor Department spokesman said."

You seemed to toss out the auto industry in retail sales, why not do it here?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

You act as if every single job lost was full time and full benefits...they weren't. Last month, 20,000 government jobs were LOST.

It dropped for a little while, and then rebounded this year. I saw the graph of it. It's up 1% the last 8-10 months, if I remember correctly.

 

[CaptnKirk]

3 million jobs over the last 18 months doesn't even hire the High School Grads, nor the College Grads in the same timeframe.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

"The increase in seasonally adjusted initial claims was "primarily" due to temporary seasonal layoffs in the auto manufacturing industry, a Labor Department spokesman said."

You seemed to toss out the auto industry in retail sales, why not do it here?

A fluke in sales <> lost job

Quit your job and see how long you survive.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

You act as if every single job lost was full time and full benefits...they weren't. Last month, 20,000 government jobs were LOST.

It dropped for a little while, and then rebounded this year. I saw the graph of it. It's up 1% the last 8-10 months, if I remember correctly.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...l=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000

Propagandist takes office: 67.2
June 2005: 66.0

 

[umbrella39]

U.S. firms planned the highest number of layoffs in June since January 2004, led by the automotive and retail industries, a report said on Wednesday.

Employment consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said employers announced 110,996 job cuts last month, up from 82,283 in May, and 73 percent higher than June 2004.

Meh

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

You act as if every single job lost was full time and full benefits...they weren't. Last month, 20,000 government jobs were LOST.

It dropped for a little while, and then rebounded this year. I saw the graph of it. It's up 1% the last 8-10 months, if I remember correctly.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...l=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000

Propagandist takes office: 67.2
June 2005: 66.0

1.2% drop isn't that bad. I think I was thinking of the employment rate, which IS up 1% the last few months. Are you gonna respond to the first part?

The labor force partiticipation rate drop could easily be because baby boomers are starting to retire, thus throwing the stats off.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

"The increase in seasonally adjusted initial claims was "primarily" due to temporary seasonal layoffs in the auto manufacturing industry, a Labor Department spokesman said."

You seemed to toss out the auto industry in retail sales, why not do it here?

A fluke in sales <> lost job

Quit your job and see how long you survive.

Assuming that one doesn't spend like the US government running up creditcard debt, you should have a few months of money in case on emergency.

 

[conjur]

Do you mean the # of people employed? I'm sure that's up. Our population is still growing. We don't have a negative birth rate. BUT, you're missing the point. Those participating in the work force are fewer as a percentage of those eligible. The number of workers is not keeping pace with the population growth. Or, those that are working aren't fully employed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
And how many of those jobs are full-time with benefits and in the private sector, not the government?

Besides, 3 million over 18 months just barely covers the minimum necessary to maintain a level labor force participation rate (which we all know is dropping)

"The increase in seasonally adjusted initial claims was "primarily" due to temporary seasonal layoffs in the auto manufacturing industry, a Labor Department spokesman said."

You seemed to toss out the auto industry in retail sales, why not do it here?

A fluke in sales <> lost job

Quit your job and see how long you survive.

Assuming that one doesn't spend like the US government running up creditcard debt, you should have a few months of money in case on emergency.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
Do you mean the # of people employed? I'm sure that's up. Our population is still growing. We don't have a negative birth rate. BUT, you're missing the point. Those participating in the work force are fewer as a percentage of those eligible. The number of workers is not keeping pace with the population growth. Or, those that are working aren't fully employed.

In december of 2002, there were 8.6 million unemployed people. In June of 2005, there are 7.4 million unemployed. 1.2 million people found jobs. In december of 2002, unemployment was at 6.0%, June of 2003 it was at 6.3%. It's at 5% now. We're seeing SIGNIFICANT job growth and you refuse to admit it.

And no, I meant the employment rate.

 

[Moonbeam]

I remember first hearing the story of the Zen master, on seeing a thief make off with his meager posessions at night saying, "Too bad I can't give him that moon!"

I had no idea at the time that he actually owned it.

---------

Take what is given; give what can't be taken.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Do you mean the # of people employed? I'm sure that's up. Our population is still growing. We don't have a negative birth rate. BUT, you're missing the point. Those participating in the work force are fewer as a percentage of those eligible. The number of workers is not keeping pace with the population growth. Or, those that are working aren't fully employed.

In december of 2002, there were 8.6 million unemployed people. In June of 2005, there are 7.4 million unemployed. 1.2 million people found jobs. In december of 2002, unemployment was at 6.0%, June of 2003 it was at 6.3%. It's at 5% now. We're seeing SIGNIFICANT job growth and you refuse to admit it.

And no, I meant the employment rate.

And from where did you pull those numbers of unemployed? If you're trying to use the unemployment rate, try again. That number is all but meaningless now.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Do you mean the # of people employed? I'm sure that's up. Our population is still growing. We don't have a negative birth rate. BUT, you're missing the point. Those participating in the work force are fewer as a percentage of those eligible. The number of workers is not keeping pace with the population growth. Or, those that are working aren't fully employed.

In december of 2002, there were 8.6 million unemployed people. In June of 2005, there are 7.4 million unemployed. 1.2 million people found jobs. In december of 2002, unemployment was at 6.0%, June of 2003 it was at 6.3%. It's at 5% now. We're seeing SIGNIFICANT job growth and you refuse to admit it.

And no, I meant the employment rate.

And from where did you pull those numbers of unemployed? If you're trying to use the unemployment rate, try again. That number is all but meaningless now.

http://www.bls.gov - I'm not sure how to link directly to the graph, it is the unemployment level graph.

The last 2 years have shown significant job growth, that is pretty much undisputable. Oh, and unemployment rate corrolates to the unemployment level, so yes, it IS meaningful.

From June of 2003 to June of 2005, there are now 1.8 million less unemployed people. Siginificant job growth. From 9.2 million unemployed to 7.4 million.

 

[BarneyFife]

The job market is pretty slim out there. A lof of temporary jobs (who really wants to bounce around every month?) and jobs with no benefits. Saying their are a million new jobs really doesn't mean much if 80% of them are temporary jobs with no benefits.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Do you mean the # of people employed? I'm sure that's up. Our population is still growing. We don't have a negative birth rate. BUT, you're missing the point. Those participating in the work force are fewer as a percentage of those eligible. The number of workers is not keeping pace with the population growth. Or, those that are working aren't fully employed.

In december of 2002, there were 8.6 million unemployed people. In June of 2005, there are 7.4 million unemployed. 1.2 million people found jobs. In december of 2002, unemployment was at 6.0%, June of 2003 it was at 6.3%. It's at 5% now. We're seeing SIGNIFICANT job growth and you refuse to admit it.

And no, I meant the employment rate.

And from where did you pull those numbers of unemployed? If you're trying to use the unemployment rate, try again. That number is all but meaningless now.

http://www.bls.gov - I'm not sure how to link directly to the graph, it is the unemployment level graph.

The last 2 years have shown significant job growth, that is pretty much undisputable. Oh, and unemployment rate corrolates to the unemployment level, so yes, it IS meaningful.

From June of 2003 to June of 2005, there are now 1.8 million less unemployed people. Siginificant job growth. From 9.2 million unemployed to 7.4 million.

No, the unemployment number refers to a survey of people. If someone is working a part-time job, they are not unemployed. If someone is underemployed, they are not unemployed.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
3 million jobs over the last 18 months doesn't even hire the High School Grads, nor the College Grads in the same timeframe.

I didn't have trouble finding a summer job at a Silicon Valley tech company even though I just graduated from HS in FL this year. They're even going to hire me as a consultant after I go off to school.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Do you mean the # of people employed? I'm sure that's up. Our population is still growing. We don't have a negative birth rate. BUT, you're missing the point. Those participating in the work force are fewer as a percentage of those eligible. The number of workers is not keeping pace with the population growth. Or, those that are working aren't fully employed.

In december of 2002, there were 8.6 million unemployed people. In June of 2005, there are 7.4 million unemployed. 1.2 million people found jobs. In december of 2002, unemployment was at 6.0%, June of 2003 it was at 6.3%. It's at 5% now. We're seeing SIGNIFICANT job growth and you refuse to admit it.

And no, I meant the employment rate.

And from where did you pull those numbers of unemployed? If you're trying to use the unemployment rate, try again. That number is all but meaningless now.

http://www.bls.gov - I'm not sure how to link directly to the graph, it is the unemployment level graph.

The last 2 years have shown significant job growth, that is pretty much undisputable. Oh, and unemployment rate corrolates to the unemployment level, so yes, it IS meaningful.

From June of 2003 to June of 2005, there are now 1.8 million less unemployed people. Siginificant job growth. From 9.2 million unemployed to 7.4 million.

No, the unemployment number refers to a survey of people. If someone is working a part-time job, they are not unemployed. If someone is underemployed, they are not unemployed.

Hey buddy, a survey is the only way to gauge it. Do you expect them to go to every single person in the USA and ask if they are employed, every single month? Of course not, of COURSE it's based on a survey. Why should someone who is working part time be considered UN-employed? Unemployed means no job. For you, there is no way to gauge unemployment. The unemployment rate is the only real way to gauge it, and you refuse to accept the results. Why is it that everyone except you seems to accept the numbers? Oh yeah, because it runs contrary to your beliefs that Bush's policies aren't working.

 

[conjur]

So, you prefer to have more people working part-time than full-time? You prefer to have more people underemployed? You prefer to have more people without benefits like health insurance?