• 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."

Unemployment claims drop, again, producitivy up

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
linkage

The Labor Department's report on Thursday, though, said initial claims for state unemployment aid last week fell 43,000 to 348,000 from a revised 391,000 the prior week. The unexpectedly steep tumble took claims to their lowest since late January 2001, two months before the recession.

....

On the productivity front, the department said in a separate report that non-farm business productivity climbed at an 8.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the biggest surge since the first quarter of 2002.

The economic bad news continues to roll in.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
I agree completely.

BTW, the steel tariff makes no sense since it costs more jobs than it has created. Auto parts are now being made in Canada and shipped finished to the US to avoid them. There is no tariff on manufactured products. Go figure.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
I agree completely.

BTW, the steel tariff makes no sense since it costs more jobs than it has created. Auto parts are now being made in Canada and shipped finished to the US to avoid them. There is no tariff on manufactured products. Go figure.
There are alot of people right now screaming for tarrifs to protect the american worker. And often tarrifs do not have the desired effects.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery?
I didn't claim the first, so i don't claim the second either. President Bush was unlucky enough to take office on the cusp of a downturn in the business cycle. His policies had at best a minimal effect in either prolonging or shortening it, depending on your POV. Hell, Alan Greenspan barely budged the economy by dropping rates to 1% and printing money at a balls to the wall pace (inflating M3 at a near obscene rate) so it's not as if Bush's pittance did anything.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
I don't know, but all along we've been told that (A) presidents have little or no effect on the economy, (B) A $3.2 Trillion U.S. economy does not turn on a dime. Personally, I believe the economy simply recovered on its own despite Bush's best efforts (i.e. tax cuts).
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
I don't know, but all along we've been told that (A) presidents have little or no effect on the economy, (B) A $3.2 Trillion U.S. economy does not turn on a dime. Personally, I believe the economy simply recovered on its own despite Bush's best efforts (i.e. tax cuts).
Yet we hear cries of "The Bush economy is the worst since XXXXX", "Bush ignored the economy", or "Bush destroyed the economy" - coming from the left. So are the "candidates" lying when they pin the "bad economy" on Bush?

I really don't care if he gets "credit" - just as long as he isn't "blamed" also. One thing, though, that is undeniable(well atleast to conscious people) is that the economy is picking up and is recovering.

CkG
 
Aug 27, 2003
35
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
Recovery? Who said anything about a recovery. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little to the people who are either already on unemployment or have already exhausted their unemployment. Again, it is not surprising that this number continues to fall as fewer and fewer people are in the workforce to even GET unemployed. You have to have a job to loose one.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
Recovery? Who said anything about a recovery. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little to the people who are either already on unemployment or have already exhausted their unemployment. Again, it is not surprising that this number continues to fall as fewer and fewer people are in the workforce to even GET unemployed. You have to have a job to loose one.

There is always someone looking for the dark cloud in the silver lining.
 
Aug 27, 2003
35
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
Recovery? Who said anything about a recovery. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little to the people who are either already on unemployment or have already exhausted their unemployment. Again, it is not surprising that this number continues to fall as fewer and fewer people are in the workforce to even GET unemployed. You have to have a job to loose one.

There is always someone looking for the dark cloud in the silver lining.
I don't have to look for any dark clouds, one has been hanging over my house for over 2 years now. Rumor has it there is an even bigger cloud hanging over the continental Unites States. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little when you figure in all the people who are already unemployed. The real question is can businesses afford to scale down any more than they already have and still stay solvent.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
Recovery? Who said anything about a recovery. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little to the people who are either already on unemployment or have already exhausted their unemployment. Again, it is not surprising that this number continues to fall as fewer and fewer people are in the workforce to even GET unemployed. You have to have a job to loose one.

There is always someone looking for the dark cloud in the silver lining.
I don't have to look for any dark clouds, one has been hanging over my house for over 2 years now. Rumor has it there is an even bigger cloud hanging over the continental Unites States. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little when you figure in all the people who are already unemployed. The real question is can businesses afford to scale down any more than they already have and still stay solvent.
No offence, if you have been unemployed for 2 years, you are far to picky. I would rather be underemployed than unemployed.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
Recovery? Who said anything about a recovery. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little to the people who are either already on unemployment or have already exhausted their unemployment. Again, it is not surprising that this number continues to fall as fewer and fewer people are in the workforce to even GET unemployed. You have to have a job to loose one.

There is always someone looking for the dark cloud in the silver lining.
I don't have to look for any dark clouds, one has been hanging over my house for over 2 years now. Rumor has it there is an even bigger cloud hanging over the continental Unites States. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little when you figure in all the people who are already unemployed. The real question is can businesses afford to scale down any more than they already have and still stay solvent.
No offence, if you have been unemployed for 2 years, you are far to picky. I would rather be underemployed than unemployed.
Working 2-3 jobs at $7 an hour, 70 hours a week pays $25K yearly. "But that would be hard work!"
 
Aug 27, 2003
35
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
Recovery? Who said anything about a recovery. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little to the people who are either already on unemployment or have already exhausted their unemployment. Again, it is not surprising that this number continues to fall as fewer and fewer people are in the workforce to even GET unemployed. You have to have a job to loose one.


There is always someone looking for the dark cloud in the silver lining.
I don't have to look for any dark clouds, one has been hanging over my house for over 2 years now. Rumor has it there is an even bigger cloud hanging over the continental Unites States. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little when you figure in all the people who are already unemployed. The real question is can businesses afford to scale down any more than they already have and still stay solvent.
No offence, if you have been unemployed for 2 years, you are far to picky. I would rather be underemployed than unemployed.
LOL. Non taken! Listen, in SE Michigan, I can't even get a fine dining waitering job (and I have 10 years experience in that field). Even THEY aren't hiring.

The Home Depot, Best Buy, Kmart, Walmart etc. are a little cynical when it comes to hiring someone with a Masters Degree for their $8 an hour paying jobs. You see, they know (or at least think they know) that as soon as something better comes along, the over-qualified employees like us will jump ship.

Ever try supporting a family of 5 on $325 a week? Unemployment lands you slightly more than $325 a week here in Michigan if you are getting the Max.

No, so your assumption that I am too picky is just so very typical. I work out of my house designing and developing websites. Does this give my family health benefits? Certainly not. Does this protect me when one of my customers that owex me money goes belly up and can't pay their invoices? Hell no.

So until you have walked a mile in someone's shoes who can't find even $8 an hour employment, you really need to be a little more sensitive to the plight of your OWN countrymen. But hey, $86 billion wouldn't help me anyhow, I think I pay that much alone in Credit Card interest a year :(

 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,746
1
81
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
LOL. Non taken! Listen, in SE Michigan, I can't even get a fine dining waitering job (and I have 10 years experience in that field).
Then if there are no jobs, why are you still there?
 
Aug 27, 2003
35
0
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
LOL. Non taken! Listen, in SE Michigan, I can't even get a fine dining waitering job (and I have 10 years experience in that field).
Then if there are no jobs, why are you still there?
Uh, what? Why don't I sell my house, move my family, and relocate? Is that your question? You know you can really tell who the single republicans are here. If I really wanted to relocate to where the jobs in the IT sector are, I would have to move to India because that is where they have all been outsourced to. Nah, I think I will stay here in the good old USA if that is OK with you.

 

ITJunkie

Platinum Member
Apr 17, 2003
2,512
0
76
www.techange.com
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
I don't know, but all along we've been told that (A) presidents have little or no effect on the economy, (B) A $3.2 Trillion U.S. economy does not turn on a dime. Personally, I believe the economy simply recovered on its own despite Bush's best efforts (i.e. tax cuts).
Yet we hear cries of "The Bush economy is the worst since XXXXX", "Bush ignored the economy", or "Bush destroyed the economy" - coming from the left. So are the "candidates" lying when they pin the "bad economy" on Bush?

I really don't care if he gets "credit" - just as long as he isn't "blamed" also. One thing, though, that is undeniable(well atleast to conscious people) is that the economy is picking up and is recovering.

CkG
I agree with you CKG...I don't think Bush deserves any credit or blame for what's happening now.

In 3 years time however he will be held responsible for the economy. FWIW an economist put Bushes tax cuts this way "they are like a steroid shot for the economy. It will buy us some time but sooner or later the steroid wears off and the situation may indeed be worse than before." Or something like that ;)

We will have to wait and see.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
LOL. Non taken! Listen, in SE Michigan, I can't even get a fine dining waitering job (and I have 10 years experience in that field).
Then if there are no jobs, why are you still there?
Uh, what? Why don't I sell my house, move my family, and relocate? Is that your question? You know you can really tell who the single republicans are here. If I really wanted to relocate to where the jobs in the IT sector are, I would have to move to India because that is where they have all been outsourced to. Nah, I think I will stay here in the good old USA if that is OK with you.


I moved a FAMILY to get a better job - it's not that hard - and yes I'm a Conservative. Yes selling your place can be a pain, but so is being unemployed in a region where there are virtually zero jobs. I moved from bumble fsck Wisconsin where there was NOTHING except farming and an odd factory here or there(cheese plant;)) I suggest you get out of Dodge to go find a job or STFU. The jobs aren't magically going to come find you. You gotta go to where the jobs are. You happen to be double fscked because you are in the "IT" field - where everyone and their brother is a "web-designer". btw - there are IT jobs here in the US. Heck my brother is still in school for an IT related piece of paper - and guess what - he landed a job here in DesMoines working for an IT dept at a trucking company. Yeah - that's right - right here in the heartland - an "IT" job- whodda thunk it.

CkG
 

fluxquantum

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2000
2,398
1
71
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sounds good to me. So long as Bush doesn't take undue credit for making it happen, i might even be tempted to cut him some slack on some of the dumb economic policy choices he's made (like the steel tariffs). The credit i give him will probably be the inverse proportion of how much he claims.
So it's Bush's fault for causing this economic down-turn, but he isn't responsible for the recovery? :confused:
Recovery? Who said anything about a recovery. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little to the people who are either already on unemployment or have already exhausted their unemployment. Again, it is not surprising that this number continues to fall as fewer and fewer people are in the workforce to even GET unemployed. You have to have a job to loose one.


There is always someone looking for the dark cloud in the silver lining.
I don't have to look for any dark clouds, one has been hanging over my house for over 2 years now. Rumor has it there is an even bigger cloud hanging over the continental Unites States. Again, drops in first time unemployment claims mean very little when you figure in all the people who are already unemployed. The real question is can businesses afford to scale down any more than they already have and still stay solvent.
No offence, if you have been unemployed for 2 years, you are far to picky. I would rather be underemployed than unemployed.
LOL. Non taken! Listen, in SE Michigan, I can't even get a fine dining waitering job (and I have 10 years experience in that field). Even THEY aren't hiring.

The Home Depot, Best Buy, Kmart, Walmart etc. are a little cynical when it comes to hiring someone with a Masters Degree for their $8 an hour paying jobs. You see, they know (or at least think they know) that as soon as something better comes along, the over-qualified employees like us will jump ship.

Ever try supporting a family of 5 on $325 a week? Unemployment lands you slightly more than $325 a week here in Michigan if you are getting the Max.

No, so your assumption that I am too picky is just so very typical. I work out of my house designing and developing websites. Does this give my family health benefits? Certainly not. Does this protect me when one of my customers that owex me money goes belly up and can't pay their invoices? Hell no.

So until you have walked a mile in someone's shoes who can't find even $8 an hour employment, you really need to be a little more sensitive to the plight of your OWN countrymen. But hey, $86 billion wouldn't help me anyhow, I think I pay that much alone in Credit Card interest a year :(
that is very true. i have applied for various types of jobs with no luck. i have a BS in engineering and like you said most places like you mentioned won't hire me. fortunately, i have my g/f supporting me. i am still hunting though.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,746
1
81
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
LOL. Non taken! Listen, in SE Michigan, I can't even get a fine dining waitering job (and I have 10 years experience in that field).
Then if there are no jobs, why are you still there?
Uh, what? Why don't I sell my house, move my family, and relocate? Is that your question? You know you can really tell who the single republicans are here. If I really wanted to relocate to where the jobs in the IT sector are, I would have to move to India because that is where they have all been outsourced to. Nah, I think I will stay here in the good old USA if that is OK with you.
Suit yourself. If you want to stay where there are no jobs, nobody here will feel sorry for you. I know many, many people who have relocated their families for work. If you expect jobs to come to you, then you are a fool.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I moved a FAMILY to get a better job - it's not that hard - and yes I'm a Conservative. Yes selling your place can be a pain, but so is being unemployed in a region where there are virtually zero jobs. I moved from bumble fsck Wisconsin where there was NOTHING except farming and an odd factory here or there(cheese plant;)) I suggest you get out of Dodge to go find a job or STFU. The jobs aren't magically going to come find you. You gotta go to where the jobs are. You happen to be double fscked because you are in the "IT" field - where everyone and their brother is a "web-designer". btw - there are IT jobs here in the US. Heck my brother is still in school for an IT related piece of paper - and guess what - he landed a job here in DesMoines working for an IT dept at a trucking company. Yeah - that's right - right here in the heartland - an "IT" job- whodda thunk it.

CkG
Wait! You guys have NETWORKS in the HEARTLAND?!? Holy crap! What's next? Foreign cars? ;) Seriously Cad, you should write a book about "overcoming adversity" - you could be the poster boy for personal responsiblity in the mid-west.
 
Aug 27, 2003
35
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: UnemployedMay2001
LOL. Non taken! Listen, in SE Michigan, I can't even get a fine dining waitering job (and I have 10 years experience in that field).
Then if there are no jobs, why are you still there?
Uh, what? Why don't I sell my house, move my family, and relocate? Is that your question? You know you can really tell who the single republicans are here. If I really wanted to relocate to where the jobs in the IT sector are, I would have to move to India because that is where they have all been outsourced to. Nah, I think I will stay here in the good old USA if that is OK with you.


I moved a FAMILY to get a better job - it's not that hard - and yes I'm a Conservative. Yes selling your place can be a pain, but so is being unemployed in a region where there are virtually zero jobs. I moved from bumble fsck Wisconsin where there was NOTHING except farming and an odd factory here or there(cheese plant;)) I suggest you get out of Dodge to go find a job or STFU. The jobs aren't magically going to come find you. You gotta go to where the jobs are. You happen to be double fscked because you are in the "IT" field - where everyone and their brother is a "web-designer". btw - there are IT jobs here in the US. Heck my brother is still in school for an IT related piece of paper - and guess what - he landed a job here in DesMoines working for an IT dept at a trucking company. Yeah - that's right - right here in the heartland - an "IT" job- whodda thunk it.

CkG
WTG CKG! You obviously had enough money to relocate. It's not that hard? Once again, all you can see are things through your own, rose colored glasses. Sorry bud, not everyone has enough cash on hand to move. When you can barly make your current mortgage payments, that whole closing cost, cost of moving, cost of relocating thing just really doesn't sit too well with dead presidents that were not in your wallet to begin with. Ya know, kind of that whole Catch-22 thing. Sure I would love to move to Tampa Florida to be near my folks with the wife and kids but I simply lack the cash to do anything about that.

Now, if the government started a Low Interest Loan program to where displaced workers with families and low-income could borrow $10K to facilitate this kind of move, I would be all for relocating. But do you ever think something like that is going to happen when we have so many more "pressing" matters at hand to deal with in the middle east? Not likely.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY