Unemployment falls to lowest level since May 2001

[db]

Any business worth it's salt knows you can't trust the Federal Governments figures, because they are POLITICAL numbers.
Businesses have other sources to get reality-based numbers so they can make sound business decisions.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
10-Year Labor Force Participation Rate

Note that the "recovery" began in Q4 2003. Wow...look at those jobs grow!!! :roll:

Yes look at that huge 1% difference. The world is coming to an end.....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Despite all the good news month after month, some people still seem to think that the economy is doing terrible.

The addition of this good news will likely avert any suspected weakening of the market and keep us going strong.

No one ever said there wasn't a dearth of Wally World stocking shelf jobs available.

Just some of us don't happen to think that is "good news" or a sign of a"strong" Country.

Actually wages went up an annual rate of 4% last month as well, while inflation went DOWN 1%. So they aren't Walmart jobs being created.

Inflation when DOWN 1%? O RLY?

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=343

The BLS publishes estimates of the effects of major methodological changes over time on the reported inflation rate (see the "Reporting Focus" section of the October 2005 Shadow Government Statistics newsletter -- available to the public in the Archives of www.shadowstats.com). Changes estimated by the BLS show roughly a 4% understatement in current annual CPI inflation versus what would have been reported using the original methodology. Adding the roughly 3% lost to geometric weighting -- most of which not included in the BLS estimates -- takes the current total CPI understatement to roughly 7%.

There now are three major CPI measures published by the BLS, CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) and the Chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U). The CPI-U is the popularly followed inflation measure reported in the financial media. It was introduced in 1978 as a more-broadly-based version of the then existing CPI, which was renamed CPI-W. The CPI-W is used in calculating Social Security benefits. These two series tend to move together and are based on frequent price sampling, which is supposed to yield something close to an average monthly price measure by component.

The C-CPI-U was introduced during the second Bush Administration as an alternate CPI measure. Unlike the theoretical approximation of geometric weighting to a variable, substitution-prone market basket, the C-CPI-U is a direct measure of the substitution effect. The difference in reporting is that August 2006 year-to-year inflation rates for the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U were 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Hence current inflation still has a 0.4% notch to be taken out of it through methodological manipulation. The C-CPI-U would not have been introduced unless there were plans to replace the current series, eventually.

Traditional inflation rates can be estimated by adding 7.0% to the CPI-U annual growth rate (3.8% +7.0% = 10.8% as of August 2006) or by adding 7.4% to the C-CPI-U rate (3.4% + 7.4% = 10.8% as of August 2006). Graphs of alternate CPI measures can be found as follows. The CPI adjusted solely for the impact of the shift to geometric weighting is shown in the graph on the home page of www.shadowstats.com. The CPI adjusted for both the geometric weighting and earlier methodological changes is shown on the Alternate Data page, which is available as a tab at the top of the home page.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Simple economics can explain to you why a low unemployment is not always a good thing.

And this unemployment rate is total BS.

Here's the proof

No way unemployment can keep going down if the # of jobs created each month is at or below the equilibrium level. 3 of the 10 months of this year have been above it, the rest have been well below, on average.

You're kidding, right? The running average is above the required line for 75% of the graph, thus reducing the unemployment rate.

See my post above where I mention "Ain't nuthin' getting through"

You keep proving that point with each and every post.


But, fwiw, I will try again:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data


And note the LFPR has maintained the same level since June.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Note how the LFPR rate is, essentially, the same each month since the start of the "recovery" in Q4 2003.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm (turn on the 1st 8 Seasonally Adjusted checkboxes)
In pretty picture form(looks like the post-Katrina dip has corrected itself and we're back to flat-line)

LFPR from 1996-Present

LFPR is down about 1% from its high when Bush took office. First of all, nobody is saying that the economy is as strong as it was in the mid to late 90's, the economy has never been that strong. Second of all, the lower LFPR could be due to all kinds of reasons, including baby boomers retiring, etc... (it could also be that the job market isn't as strong as it was at the turn of the century, or a combination of both). My whole point is that the economy really isn't as weak as you or others like to portray it. Thank you for at least backing up your opinions with the numbers that led you to your conclusion.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/01/follow-up-to-unemployment-rate-puzzle.html

If you look at the graph, the LFPR has been on a downward trend for 30 years, so to blame Bush or a "weak" economy for the LFPR going down is pretty ridiculous when it took a huge hit during the boom of the 90's. If you look at the graph, during the boom times the LFPR goes DOWN, and during the recessions it trends UP.

That's a VERY misleading chart to which you linked.

That's ONLY men over the age of 20 since 1978. What's the LFPR for women in that timeframe? Esp. considering more and more women were entering the workforce. And what about teenagers?

Try this one:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/page3b.htm

Also, retirees are not counted. The LFPR is of the working age population.

If you run this back for prior years, you'll find the LFPR is languishing at early 1990s levels:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...l=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000

And when you run it back to 1978, you see the overall upward trend, which completely blows your BS link out of the water. Except for the drop that's happened since the end of the dot-com boom (and the continued lack of job creation by this administration)
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS11300000_128866_1162671093994.gif

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Simple economics can explain to you why a low unemployment is not always a good thing.

And this unemployment rate is total BS.

Here's the proof

No way unemployment can keep going down if the # of jobs created each month is at or below the equilibrium level. 3 of the 10 months of this year have been above it, the rest have been well below, on average.

You're kidding, right? The running average is above the required line for 75% of the graph, thus reducing the unemployment rate.

See my post above where I mention "Ain't nuthin' getting through"

You keep proving that point with each and every post.


But, fwiw, I will try again:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data


And note the LFPR has maintained the same level since June.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Note how the LFPR rate is, essentially, the same each month since the start of the "recovery" in Q4 2003.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm (turn on the 1st 8 Seasonally Adjusted checkboxes)
In pretty picture form(looks like the post-Katrina dip has corrected itself and we're back to flat-line)

LFPR from 1996-Present

LFPR is down about 1% from its high when Bush took office. First of all, nobody is saying that the economy is as strong as it was in the mid to late 90's, the economy has never been that strong. Second of all, the lower LFPR could be due to all kinds of reasons, including baby boomers retiring, etc... (it could also be that the job market isn't as strong as it was at the turn of the century, or a combination of both). My whole point is that the economy really isn't as weak as you or others like to portray it. Thank you for at least backing up your opinions with the numbers that led you to your conclusion.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/01/follow-up-to-unemployment-rate-puzzle.html

If you look at the graph, the LFPR has been on a downward trend for 30 years, so to blame Bush or a "weak" economy for the LFPR going down is pretty ridiculous when it took a huge hit during the boom of the 90's. If you look at the graph, during the boom times the LFPR goes DOWN, and during the recessions it trends UP.

That's a VERY misleading chart to which you linked.

That's ONLY men over the age of 20 since 1978. What's the LFPR for women in that timeframe? Esp. considering more and more women were entering the workforce. And what about teenagers?

Try this one:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/page3b.htm

Also, retirees are not counted. The LFPR is of the working age population.

If you run this back for prior years, you'll find the LFPR is languishing at early 1990s levels:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...l=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000

You're right about the chart, I didn't notice it was for men over 20. However, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that the overall workforce trend is similar, but not as pronounced.

 

[conjur]

See my edited post above.

Specifically, this image:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS11300000_128866_1162671093994.gif


Since 1948
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS11300000_128885_1162671195983.gif

We're seeing now the longest downward/flat-line trend in 45 years.

That limb you went out on just snapped in half and dumped you on the ground.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
See my edited post above.

Specifically, this image:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS11300000_128866_1162671093994.gif


Since 1948
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS11300000_128885_1162671195983.gif

We're seeing now the longest downward/flat-line trend in 45 years.

That limb you went out on just snapped in half and dumped you on the ground.

Post the website you got those links from...the graphs don't say what they are...

 

[conjur]

Surely you aren't that dense.

I gave you the link and if you look at the URLs above you'll see the series to which the image refers.


Oh, hell, to save this from 5-6 back and forth replies dealing with your incompetence:

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

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Simple economics can explain to you why a low unemployment is not always a good thing.

And this unemployment rate is total BS.

Here's the proof

No way unemployment can keep going down if the # of jobs created each month is at or below the equilibrium level. 3 of the 10 months of this year have been above it, the rest have been well below, on average.

You're kidding, right? The running average is above the required line for 75% of the graph, thus reducing the unemployment rate.

See my post above where I mention "Ain't nuthin' getting through"

You keep proving that point with each and every post.


But, fwiw, I will try again:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data


And note the LFPR has maintained the same level since June.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Note how the LFPR rate is, essentially, the same each month since the start of the "recovery" in Q4 2003.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm (turn on the 1st 8 Seasonally Adjusted checkboxes)
In pretty picture form(looks like the post-Katrina dip has corrected itself and we're back to flat-line)

LFPR from 1996-Present

LFPR is down about 1% from its high when Bush took office. First of all, nobody is saying that the economy is as strong as it was in the mid to late 90's, the economy has never been that strong. Second of all, the lower LFPR could be due to all kinds of reasons, including baby boomers retiring, etc... (it could also be that the job market isn't as strong as it was at the turn of the century, or a combination of both). My whole point is that the economy really isn't as weak as you or others like to portray it. Thank you for at least backing up your opinions with the numbers that led you to your conclusion.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/01/follow-up-to-unemployment-rate-puzzle.html

If you look at the graph, the LFPR has been on a downward trend for 30 years, so to blame Bush or a "weak" economy for the LFPR going down is pretty ridiculous when it took a huge hit during the boom of the 90's. If you look at the graph, during the boom times the LFPR goes DOWN, and during the recessions it trends UP.

That's a VERY misleading chart to which you linked.

That's ONLY men over the age of 20 since 1978. What's the LFPR for women in that timeframe? Esp. considering more and more women were entering the workforce. And what about teenagers?

Try this one:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/page3b.htm

Also, retirees are not counted. The LFPR is of the working age population.

If you run this back for prior years, you'll find the LFPR is languishing at early 1990s levels:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...l=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000

You're right about the chart, I didn't notice it was for men over 20. However, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that the overall workforce trend is similar, but not as pronounced.

You talking about a state that is plus or minus 1% over the past decade. While no doubt higher could mean better, it is by now means a major point to be concerned about.

But so we have to ask, what is causing this 1% difference? Is it because we are aging and and the baby boomers are retiring? Is it because genX mothers are deciding to stay home with their kids? Or is it the reason that conjur wants it be, people just stopped looking for work. I dont think anyone has been able to ansewr this question, but I do know the first two are play some roll, but I dont know how large of one.


Either way, this stat is basically statisically unchanged.

 

[conjur]

You know the 1st two play a role when those of retirement age are NOT included in LFPR calculations?


:roll:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Despite all the good news month after month, some people still seem to think that the economy is doing terrible.

The addition of this good news will likely avert any suspected weakening of the market and keep us going strong.

No one ever said there wasn't a dearth of Wally World stocking shelf jobs available.

Just some of us don't happen to think that is "good news" or a sign of a"strong" Country.

Actually wages went up an annual rate of 4% last month as well, while inflation went DOWN 1%. So they aren't Walmart jobs being created.

Inflation when DOWN 1%? O RLY?

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=343

The BLS publishes estimates of the effects of major methodological changes over time on the reported inflation rate (see the "Reporting Focus" section of the October 2005 Shadow Government Statistics newsletter -- available to the public in the Archives of www.shadowstats.com). Changes estimated by the BLS show roughly a 4% understatement in current annual CPI inflation versus what would have been reported using the original methodology. Adding the roughly 3% lost to geometric weighting -- most of which not included in the BLS estimates -- takes the current total CPI understatement to roughly 7%.

There now are three major CPI measures published by the BLS, CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) and the Chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U). The CPI-U is the popularly followed inflation measure reported in the financial media. It was introduced in 1978 as a more-broadly-based version of the then existing CPI, which was renamed CPI-W. The CPI-W is used in calculating Social Security benefits. These two series tend to move together and are based on frequent price sampling, which is supposed to yield something close to an average monthly price measure by component.

The C-CPI-U was introduced during the second Bush Administration as an alternate CPI measure. Unlike the theoretical approximation of geometric weighting to a variable, substitution-prone market basket, the C-CPI-U is a direct measure of the substitution effect. The difference in reporting is that August 2006 year-to-year inflation rates for the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U were 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Hence current inflation still has a 0.4% notch to be taken out of it through methodological manipulation. The C-CPI-U would not have been introduced unless there were plans to replace the current series, eventually.

Traditional inflation rates can be estimated by adding 7.0% to the CPI-U annual growth rate (3.8% +7.0% = 10.8% as of August 2006) or by adding 7.4% to the C-CPI-U rate (3.4% + 7.4% = 10.8% as of August 2006). Graphs of alternate CPI measures can be found as follows. The CPI adjusted solely for the impact of the shift to geometric weighting is shown in the graph on the home page of www.shadowstats.com. The CPI adjusted for both the geometric weighting and earlier methodological changes is shown on the Alternate Data page, which is available as a tab at the top of the home page.

The CPI went down from 2.1% in August to .7% in September, a 1.4% DROP.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
You know the 1st two play a role when those of retirement age are NOT included in LFPR calculations?


:roll:

And what is their definition of retirement age? His whole point is that people are retiring earlier, thus possibly being counted as in the survey when they are retired...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
You know the 1st two play a role when those of retirement age are NOT included in LFPR calculations?


:roll:

from the BLS

Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey)
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

So yes this would include retired people, so long as they are not in a nursing home. Care to take that eye roll back now?

linkage

 

[conjur]

Guess I'll have to. Can't find the definitions I've found before. It's hard to see data for those aged 65 and over as in 2003 the BLS changed methodologies.

But, from the recession of 2000 up until the end of 2002, the trend was upward for increasing participation by those 65 or older, apparently, which should show an increase in the overall LFPR if it was statistically significant.

 

[conjur]

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO..._id=CUUR0000SA0&output_view=pct_12mths
Went from 3.8% (annualized) in Aug. to 2.1% (annualized) in Sept. (solely due to the extreme drop in gas/oil prices).

If you look at the overall trend of the CPI-U over the last few years, it's dramatically upward. And, when corrected to match traditional inflation rates, even that 2.1% from Sept. is really at 9.1%.


Notice what happens when food/energy prices are taken out? Inflation rose in Sept.:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...=CUUR0000SA0L1E&output_view=pct_12mths

Do you always place such high importance on one-month fluke happenings?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
Guess I'll have to. Can't find the definitions I've found before. It's hard to see data for those aged 65 and over as in 2003 the BLS changed methodologies.

But, from the recession of 2000 up until the end of 2002, the trend was upward for increasing participation by those 65 or older, apparently, which should show an increase in the overall LFPR if it was statistically significant.

The definitions have not changed so they are the same now as they were before. I am fairly certain I have pointed this out to you on several occasions.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO..._id=CUUR0000SA0&output_view=pct_12mths
Went from 3.8% (annualized) in Aug. to 2.1% (annualized) in Sept. (solely due to the extreme drop in gas/oil prices).

If you look at the overall trend of the CPI-U over the last few years, it's dramatically upward. And, when corrected to match traditional inflation rates, even that 2.1% from Sept. is really at 9.1%.


Notice what happens when food/energy prices are taken out? Inflation rose in Sept.:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...=CUUR0000SA0L1E&output_view=pct_12mths

Do you always place such high importance on one-month fluke happenings?

No, I was just pointing out this month. We are talking about the new reports, right? This thread is about the new reports, so I was pointing out what happened this month, got a problem with that?

Since when do you ever take out food and energy, when oil and gas prices were high, you never took them out. I do agree that taking oil and gas out of the numbers provides a better picture of real inflation.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Well lets talk about all of those new jobs. What sector were they created in? I'll tell you which one, the service sector. Low paying, little to no benefits and a high turn over rate. All of the good paying jobs are being shipped overseas. These large corporations are also importing tech workers under the H1B visa program and paying them less than american workers further depressing wages. Yep the current economy is a real winner. Thank you W for such a rosy economy.

PS those troops dying in Iraqistan are just a figment of your imagination.

Hey brainiac you do realize the service industry makes up 80% of the private workforce?
Service jobs include anything from the guy flipping burgers to accountants, lawyers, and doctors.

The idea service job is a low paying no benefit job is ignorant.

I'm pretty sure that there's a lot more people flipping burgers and at WalMart than there are lawyers and doctors. Accordingly, if MOST service jobs are low-wage and virtually all of the job growth is low-wage then it's likely that mean (and median) salaries sux.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Well lets talk about all of those new jobs. What sector were they created in? I'll tell you which one, the service sector. Low paying, little to no benefits and a high turn over rate. All of the good paying jobs are being shipped overseas. These large corporations are also importing tech workers under the H1B visa program and paying them less than american workers further depressing wages. Yep the current economy is a real winner. Thank you W for such a rosy economy.

PS those troops dying in Iraqistan are just a figment of your imagination.

Hey brainiac you do realize the service industry makes up 80% of the private workforce?
Service jobs include anything from the guy flipping burgers to accountants, lawyers, and doctors.

The idea service job is a low paying no benefit job is ignorant.

I'm pretty sure that there's a lot more people flipping burgers and at WalMart than there are lawyers and doctors. Accordingly, if MOST service jobs are low-wage and virtually all of the job growth is low-wage then it's likely that mean (and median) salaries sux.

It's a shame we don't have things like median salaries and per capita statistics that could somehow prove or disprove any of this...... :roll:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Well lets talk about all of those new jobs. What sector were they created in? I'll tell you which one, the service sector. Low paying, little to no benefits and a high turn over rate. All of the good paying jobs are being shipped overseas. These large corporations are also importing tech workers under the H1B visa program and paying them less than american workers further depressing wages. Yep the current economy is a real winner. Thank you W for such a rosy economy.

PS those troops dying in Iraqistan are just a figment of your imagination.

Hey brainiac you do realize the service industry makes up 80% of the private workforce?
Service jobs include anything from the guy flipping burgers to accountants, lawyers, and doctors.

The idea service job is a low paying no benefit job is ignorant.

I'm pretty sure that there's a lot more people flipping burgers and at WalMart than there are lawyers and doctors. Accordingly, if MOST service jobs are low-wage and virtually all of the job growth is low-wage then it's likely that mean (and median) salaries sux.

What do you do for a living?

 

[conjur]

Where did last month's 92k jobs come from?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=2626600&page=1

Losing jobs: residential construction (-30,700), motor vehicles and parts (-14,700), plastics and rubber products (-13,800).

Adding workers: temporary help (+15,000), health care (+22,500), restaurants and bars (+26,700) and local governments (+30,100).

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: dullard
Good news:
[*]There are plenty of jobs available.
[*]GDP is staying in the positive territory.
[*]Stocks have gone up the last couple of years.

Bad news:
[*]With all that good news, the US government can't even come close to a balanced budget.
[*]The jobs and good GDP were created by a massive 44% non-military federal budget increase over the last few years. Plus, you have the massive military federal budget increase.
[*]Inflation has increased every year for several years and shows no signs of stopping this growth.
[*]GDP growth is still positive, but it is getting smaller and smaller.
[*]Housing was one big drivers of the economy the last few years and the housing market is on the edge of a cliff. And it isn't the typical yearly cyclical variation this time.
[*]Stocks still haven't recovered from the crash and may just be in a multi-year overall-stagnant trading region.

You are a moron if you look only at the bad news and say the economy is horrible. You are equally a moron if you look only at the good news and say the economy is great. I see both types of morons in Anandtech and possibly several in this thread.

My opinion: The economy is good on many measures, but its foundation is very rocky. Rocky enough, that I think it is beginning to crumble in several areas. Will it bring everything down? Probably not. But the next year will not look nearly as rosy as it has been.

I have minor issue with stocks not recovered, if anything the Dow and S&P 500 are basically near all time highs. The NASDAQ never recovered but the peak 5000 mark was never justified particularly when you consider the sky high P/E ratios to nonexistent or negative earnings of many tech stocks of the time.

The current economic state is hard to get a view of. The GDP numbers last released were actually revised downward based on an error to something like .9%. The bond yield curve has stayed stubbornly inverted, which basically means the bond market is still betting some amount of recession is coming.

And as you mentioned, the growth we have had past couple years were powered some amount by massive federal deficit spending, which invariably will come back to bite us in the ass as either future taxation or inflation.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
It's not that Americans don't want to work xxx job, it is because they don't want xxx job's payrate.

Right. Americans don't want to work jobs that only afford them third world standards of living. I bet you don't want a job like that, either.

Originally posted by: hellokeith
The ratio of Wages / Cost of Living has been decreasing for 60+ years. This is not news. Yet some think it is the government's responsibility for you to have a house, couple of cars, nice clothes, cell phone w/ bluetooth headset, and tickets to the game/concert. If your happiness is based on having those things, then get off your rear and work more/harder, take night classes, get some certifications.. i.e. improve yourself.

Take night classes? Reeducate? Retrain? For what ???

Patent Law? But we already have an oversupply of people with both engineering (or science Ph.D.'s) and law degrees and work in the patent field is already being sent to India.

Engineering? Much of that work's being sent to India and China, especially the computer stuff and companies will also import labor via H-1B and L-1 visas.

Financial analysis? That's being sent to India, too.

Computer programming? That's already been sent to India.

Could you please name some fields, other than the physical labor of nursing, that people could go retrain and reeducate for? Fields where there is a (real) large labor shortfall that offer middle class livings? Maybe you know something that most Americans who'd like to retrain don't.

It's real sad that Americans have bought into the politicians' and the media's opiate of the masses--education. "Education will save us!"

My brother has an advanced science degree and a law degree (from a very reputable law school) and he couldn't find a job in his field because we have too many people with the same combination--that's a whole buttload of education there--and we have <gasp> an oversupply of such highly educated people! We even have such people who are unemployed or severely underemployed, earning meager livings while facing student loan debts. One of the reasons so many science Ph.D.s went to law school was...because we had a huge oversupply of Ph.D. scientists.

Education and retraining are the magical solutions to unemployment--believe it if you're one of the sheeple! The politicians and the media just love feeding it to the American people who gobble it right up, as though education magically created middle class jobs. In reality, education is not a solution for sound economic policy (such as policies that would address the issue of global labor wage arbitrage).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
umm unemployment was also very low during the age of feudalism.

Which is apparantly what the GOP wants for America. No middle class.

The issue is not merely the quantity of jobs available, but also the quality. Unfortunately, since it's much harder to measure quality, the mindless media tends to only focus on quantity. The real issue is the quantity of quality jobs available--the quantity of jobs that afford a middle class standard of living.

After all, people in third world countries have jobs--jobs that afford them a third world standard of living.

Unfortunately, the media only reports on the quantity and almost always ignores the issue of quality. Also, the unemployment data (which is very, very suspect and politically doctored) never accounts for job quality. Instead of the unemployment figure, a better figure might be to ask what percentage of the work-aged population have jobs that afford at worst a lower-middle class standard of living. I'd love to see the data for that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Upward mobility is the responsibility of the individual, not any political party. Though political parties (plural) may lie and try to take advantage of the poor, it is nevertheless up to the individual to study, work hard, and better himself/herself.

That sounds good and it's true to a great extent, but it also implies that the government has no influence or affect on the economy at all, which is totally false. Perhaps in a cuckoo-cloud fantasy world government policy (and the policies of other governments) have zero effect on the economy, but it doesn't work out that way.

It would be more accurate to say that the individual is responsible for working to better his productive ability and that the government is responsible for maintaining an economic and social environment where people can do that and where productive ability will be fully utilized. After all, you can earn large amoutns of college degrees and become very competent in many fields, but if jobs are unavailable or no one will hire you, it doesn't matter even though you took responsibility.

Sadly, Americans suffer from a dogmatic belief that we live in a meritocracy where virtuous and responsible action is rewarded. In reality, we in a world where virtuous and responsible action often goes unrewarded.

Just ask hard-working, educated, often experienced, productive folks who've suffered layoffs and/or can't find a job in spite of their produtive ablities. How do you explain the existence of such people?