US consumer confidence booms in November

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sorry dirtboy, you're in over your head. I'd suggest you not call others "economically challenged" until you learn something about the subject at hand.

We aren't the one who generate the jobs numbers. The government does the research for us. Since Bush took office, we've lost about three milllion jobs net. In the last three months, we've gained back less than 10% of them. If Microsoft hired "10 billion American's [sic]", it would show up in the government's figures whether it made a headline or not.

Moreover, not all jobs are created equal. I don't have any links handy, but the consensus is that many of the jobs lost are good, high-paying jobs; most of the jobs gained are low-paying, limited benefits Wal-Mart type jobs. People may become employed again, but they are often under-employed, earning less and often going without benefits. Let's hope this trend is reversed once we get a good, solid, jobs-based recovery going.

You're right, you don't generate the numbers the news does and you misinterpret them day in and day out.

Perhaps you should learn something, because the consensus is that you are economically challenged.

Right. Did you and Sir Cad skip Reading 101 together? Just curious.

The problem with your little rant is you keep changing your story. You first claimed we are misinformed about jobs creation because we get our data from "headlines"; your premise being the media loves bad news so they don't talk about hiring. When I pointed out that I'm using the government's employment numbers -- the same numbers you use to show recent signs of recovery -- you now claim the "news" generates the numbers and we are "misinterpreting" them. The government generates the numbers, not the "news", you used them too, and I am apparently better able to interpret them than you are. I suppose now that I called BS on this, you'll switch to a third story.

The simple fact is we lost millions of jobs during Bush-lite's watch, and so far we've only gained a fraction of them back. While I am sure that's an unhappy fact for a die-hard YABA like yourself, it is nonetheless true. I agree the signs of recovery are encouraging, but we aren't there yet ... not by a long shot.

You also ignore the simple fact that not all jobs are created equal. Like it or not, the consensus is we are replacing good jobs with mediocre jobs. Obviously there are some good jobs regained, just not in proportion to the loss. I'm sure this is another unhappy fact for the YABAs to accept. However, unless you can provide real, statistical evidence there is NOT a proportional loss of good jobs, I will assume the consensus is right and your objections are sour grapes.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: alchemize
Define "workers" for me, would you please?

?Workers? are those people who lack the requisite skills needed in today?s marketplace and therefore feel disenfranchised from the ?American Dream?. The usually use the argument, "If the economy is doing so well, why am I not making more money for the same level of productivity? Why am I making minimum wage when I have 9 credits from the local community college?"

Welcome back, JG. I see you're as arrogant as ever. Did you ever figure out that Iraqis are human beings too?

There are a lot of highly educated, highly skilled people today who are either out of work or were unemployed for months before accepting jobs for which they are terribly overqualified. If you're in a good, secure job, more power to you. Recognize, however, that there are many people who are just as educated and just as skilled and just as industrious who aren't so lucky because they picked the wrong employer. The fact that you are employed and they aren't is random chance. It could easily have been you or me instead.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dualsmp
Remember, it's made in America 'cause the box said so...

?Boxgate?

American-Made Mystery

"On Wednesday President Bush made a speech in Missouri to people who own small businesses. With business people in the audience, I guess the president's handlers thought it would be appropriate to have boxes behind him ? stamped with "Made in USA." But it turns out, those weren't real boxes. He was standing in front of a screen ? with boxes painted on it.

Around the warehouse there were plenty of real boxes, but they were stamped with the words "Made in China," or "Made in Kowloon, Hong Kong." Other labels were harder to read because they were covered with black marker, but if you looked carefully, you could see the word "China."

cont...

What a cheap stunt. He is such a fraud.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You also ignore the simple fact that not all jobs are created equal. Like it or not, the consensus is we are replacing good jobs with mediocre jobs. Obviously there are some good jobs regained, just not in proportion to the loss. I'm sure this is another unhappy fact for the YABAs to accept. However, unless you can provide real, statistical evidence there is NOT a proportional loss of good jobs, I will assume the consensus is right and your objections are sour grapes.

So only tech and Manufacturing jobs are "good"? Yes - we are still shedding manufacturing jobs...so- has the rate slowed?(yes) Now again - You can sit there and blabber about this and that but you(and others who yap) have provided little to back up your claims - yet here you sit claiming that it's someone elses job to prove it wrong. I've seen the data...and it's out there for you to dissect for yourself instead of taking the word of the press as golden. I'm not saying that we are replacing all the lost jobs with better ones but that still doesn't mean that the economy is not on the right track and gaining strength....which is what is being pointed out in all these threads! How many times do I have to point that out! Nobody is saying that things are "golden" yet...they(we) are saying that the Economic growth is looking good and forecast to be increasingly strong.
Employment, as has been repeatedly stated, is a lagging factor. The FACTS are that we are seeing job growth in multiple sectors and the ones still shedding jobs are slowing the rate.

I guess the 56K gain in the 'Education and health services' sector are mediocre though. Oh wait that sector's average hourly wage is the same as the Manufacturing sector. Hmmm.
Education and health services = 15.81
Manufacturing = 15.81 (15.03 w/o overtime)

Now again, since some don't seem to understand, I'm not saying the Employment aspect doesn't need more good news - It does. We need our Manufacturing jobs back - we need "permanent" Professional &Business service jobs back(instead of temp hires), but their outlook is looking better and will come around as the economy keeps on it's upward trend. The "simple fact" is that we have lost jobs in the last 3 years but they are coming back. To dwell on the fact that we've only gained a "fraction" back is a tad silly since you can't replace that many jobs without a strong economic base which is what we are seeing grow. To gain those jobs back without the base would only make for another Bubble and crash. The "roaring" 90s is an example of this - the tech sector couldn't prop up that many non-producing jobs without a profit product...and thus the era of 100K/yr websurfing jobs(yes I know that an over-generalization) came to a crashing end, causing contraction of the economy as a whole.

Yes Bow - I know how to read, comprehend, and understand - do you? Why do you continue to continue to bleat about jobs(as Dave does) as if it the "only" thing that makes an Economy "good" - when the data, reports, and forecasts are showing an improvement on almost all fronts...including jobs. The truth is that I know and recognize the need for more and better jobs - but I also understand that other things are necessary for that to happen...which is why I and others have been talking and posting about all of these "other" factors. The "economically challenged"(as some have dubbed them) don't seem to understand these things and only look to the stock market, unemployment, or any one single factor and then cry and shout about how the sky is falling.

Meh - bleat on

CkG

 

[charrison]

Linkage

U.S. Oct personal income rose 0.4 pct

I guess walmart is paying better these days.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Linkage

U.S. Oct personal income rose 0.4 pct

I guess walmart is paying better these days.

I responded to this in another post (based on the previous report you linked):

Re. charrison's numbers, they don't measure whether people have good jobs or mediocre jobs. Note that the June numbers were better than September, even though June was a bad month for job losses. Perhaps one of our resident economists can offer better insight into how those figures are calculated and what they represent.

I don't know enough about the basis of those numbers to really understand what they show -- if anything -- with respect to good jobs vs. bad jobs. There must not be a direct correlation or June would not have been higher than September. I am sincerely interested in what this data does show if someone can provide a good, non-partisan analysis.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You also ignore the simple fact that not all jobs are created equal. Like it or not, the consensus is we are replacing good jobs with mediocre jobs. Obviously there are some good jobs regained, just not in proportion to the loss. I'm sure this is another unhappy fact for the YABAs to accept. However, unless you can provide real, statistical evidence there is NOT a proportional loss of good jobs, I will assume the consensus is right and your objections are sour grapes.

So only tech and Manufacturing jobs are "good"? Yes - we are still shedding manufacturing jobs...so- has the rate slowed?(yes) Now again - You can sit there and blabber about this and that but you(and others who yap) have provided little to back up your claims - yet here you sit claiming that it's someone elses job to prove it wrong. I've seen the data...and it's out there for you to dissect for yourself instead of taking the word of the press as golden. I'm not saying that we are replacing all the lost jobs with better ones but that still doesn't mean that the economy is not on the right track and gaining strength....which is what is being pointed out in all these threads! How many times do I have to point that out! Nobody is saying that things are "golden" yet...they(we) are saying that the Economic growth is looking good and forecast to be increasingly strong.
Employment, as has been repeatedly stated, is a lagging factor. The FACTS are that we are seeing job growth in multiple sectors and the ones still shedding jobs are slowing the rate.

I guess the 56K gain in the 'Education and health services' sector are mediocre though. Oh wait that sector's average hourly wage is the same as the Manufacturing sector. Hmmm.
Education and health services = 15.81
Manufacturing = 15.81 (15.03 w/o overtime)

Now again, since some don't seem to understand, I'm not saying the Employment aspect doesn't need more good news - It does. We need our Manufacturing jobs back - we need "permanent" Professional &Business service jobs back(instead of temp hires), but their outlook is looking better and will come around as the economy keeps on it's upward trend. The "simple fact" is that we have lost jobs in the last 3 years but they are coming back. To dwell on the fact that we've only gained a "fraction" back is a tad silly since you can't replace that many jobs without a strong economic base which is what we are seeing grow. To gain those jobs back without the base would only make for another Bubble and crash. The "roaring" 90s is an example of this - the tech sector couldn't prop up that many non-producing jobs without a profit product...and thus the era of 100K/yr websurfing jobs(yes I know that an over-generalization) came to a crashing end, causing contraction of the economy as a whole.

Yes Bow - I know how to read, comprehend, and understand - do you? Why do you continue to continue to bleat about jobs(as Dave does) as if it the "only" thing that makes an Economy "good" - when the data, reports, and forecasts are showing an improvement on almost all fronts...including jobs. The truth is that I know and recognize the need for more and better jobs - but I also understand that other things are necessary for that to happen...which is why I and others have been talking and posting about all of these "other" factors. The "economically challenged"(as some have dubbed them) don't seem to understand these things and only look to the stock market, unemployment, or any one single factor and then cry and shout about how the sky is falling.

Meh - bleat on

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Linkage

U.S. Oct personal income rose 0.4 pct

I guess walmart is paying better these days.

I responded to this in another post (based on the previous report you linked):

Re. charrison's numbers, they don't measure whether people have good jobs or mediocre jobs. Note that the June numbers were better than September, even though June was a bad month for job losses. Perhaps one of our resident economists can offer better insight into how those figures are calculated and what they represent.

I don't know enough about the basis of those numbers to really understand what they show -- if anything -- with respect to good jobs vs. bad jobs. There must not be a direct correlation or June would not have been higher than September. I am sincerely interested in what this data does show if someone can provide a good, non-partisan analysis.

Hehe - While charrison's quip was sarcasticly funny because of the claims of a "walmartization economy" the average hourly earnings for the Retail sector dropped a penny from Sept's numbers to $11.94(but up 17 cents from oct 2002). However the overall average hourly wage in America was $15.46 which is up a penny from September's numbers and up 36 cents from Oct 2002.

**note these numbers are Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls**

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sorry dirtboy, you're in over your head. I'd suggest you not call others "economically challenged" until you learn something about the subject at hand.

We aren't the one who generate the jobs numbers. The government does the research for us. Since Bush took office, we've lost about three milllion jobs net. In the last three months, we've gained back less than 10% of them. If Microsoft hired "10 billion American's [sic]", it would show up in the government's figures whether it made a headline or not.

Moreover, not all jobs are created equal. I don't have any links handy, but the consensus is that many of the jobs lost are good, high-paying jobs; most of the jobs gained are low-paying, limited benefits Wal-Mart type jobs. People may become employed again, but they are often under-employed, earning less and often going without benefits. Let's hope this trend is reversed once we get a good, solid, jobs-based recovery going.

You're right, you don't generate the numbers the news does and you misinterpret them day in and day out.

Perhaps you should learn something, because the consensus is that you are economically challenged.

Right. Did you and Sir Cad skip Reading 101 together? Just curious.

The problem with your little rant is you keep changing your story. You first claimed we are misinformed about jobs creation because we get our data from "headlines"; your premise being the media loves bad news so they don't talk about hiring. When I pointed out that I'm using the government's employment numbers -- the same numbers you use to show recent signs of recovery -- you now claim the "news" generates the numbers and we are "misinterpreting" them. The government generates the numbers, not the "news", you used them too, and I am apparently better able to interpret them than you are. I suppose now that I called BS on this, you'll switch to a third story.

The simple fact is we lost millions of jobs during Bush-lite's watch, and so far we've only gained a fraction of them back. While I am sure that's an unhappy fact for a die-hard YABA like yourself, it is nonetheless true. I agree the signs of recovery are encouraging, but we aren't there yet ... not by a long shot.

You also ignore the simple fact that not all jobs are created equal. Like it or not, the consensus is we are replacing good jobs with mediocre jobs. Obviously there are some good jobs regained, just not in proportion to the loss. I'm sure this is another unhappy fact for the YABAs to accept. However, unless you can provide real, statistical evidence there is NOT a proportional loss of good jobs, I will assume the consensus is right and your objections are sour grapes.

Excellent post Bow.

Did you notice how the AT experts conveniently ignored the article by the Georgia Politician that had the guts to say that he sees the decent jobs being replaced with LOW wage jobs? He is the Labor Commissioner of Georgia and he isn't afraid to ruffle feathers.

Many of these AT Expert Economist pundits would make excellent Politicians themselves on how they change their stories on the fly and whim to satisfy their rhetoric.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Linkage

U.S. Oct personal income rose 0.4 pct

I guess walmart is paying better these days.

I responded to this in another post (based on the previous report you linked):

Re. charrison's numbers, they don't measure whether people have good jobs or mediocre jobs. Note that the June numbers were better than September, even though June was a bad month for job losses. Perhaps one of our resident economists can offer better insight into how those figures are calculated and what they represent.

I don't know enough about the basis of those numbers to really understand what they show -- if anything -- with respect to good jobs vs. bad jobs. There must not be a direct correlation or June would not have been higher than September. I am sincerely interested in what this data does show if someone can provide a good, non-partisan analysis.

Hehe - While charrison's quip was sarcasticly funny because of the claims of a "walmartization economy" the average hourly earnings for the Retail sector dropped a penny from Sept's numbers to $11.94(but up 17 cents from oct 2002). However the overall average hourly wage in America was $15.46 which is up a penny from September's numbers and up 36 cents from Oct 2002.

**note these numbers are Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls**

CkG

Excellent. The reports are slowly starting to tell the truth, that Wages are going DOWN!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Excellent post Bow.

Did you notice how the AT experts conveniently ignored the article by the Georgia Politician that had the guts to say that he sees the decent jobs being replaced with LOW wage jobs? He is the Labor Commissioner of Georgia and he isn't afraid to ruffle feathers.

Many of these AT Expert Economist pundits would make excellent Politicians themselves on how they change their stories on the fly and whim to satisfy their rhetoric.

I think you missed this post earlier Dave...

*****

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"It's hard to find anything wrong with the economy lately. Everything is going right for a change," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.

But...but...but...I thought it was only the AT economists

Oh, and there are alot of good details in that link too - not just that one quote

CkG

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - While charrison's quip was sarcasticly funny because of the claims of a "walmartization economy" the average hourly earnings for the Retail sector dropped a penny from Sept's numbers to $11.94(but up 17 cents from oct 2002). However the overall average hourly wage in America was $15.46 which is up a penny from September's numbers and up 36 cents from Oct 2002.

**note these numbers are Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls**

CkG

Excellent. The reports are slowly starting to tell the truth, that Wages are going DOWN!

Are you purposely trying to read things out of context and come to wild conclusions?

"However the overall average hourly wage in America was $15.46 which is up a penny from September's numbers and up 36 cents from Oct 2002." But yeah I guess wages really are "going DOWN!"

CkG