News: "U.S. Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000"

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by TechGeekPro, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. TechGeekPro

    JaR Guest

    Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 1:58 PM:
    No 654,000 jobs have been added. The US population grows, however, at
    the rate of about 3.2 million per yer.* So, by your figures, over that
    six month period, the US LOST around 946,000 jobs. Doesn't sound like
    recovery to me!

    Source;

    http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm
     
    JaR, Apr 9, 2004
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. circa Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:06:48 -0400, in
    microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, TechGeekPro (%username%@yahoo.com)
    said,
    There seem to be a few more jobs out there these days than in the
    past, but the pay is horrendous.

    There's my snap summary. :)

    Laura
     
    Laura A. Robinson, Apr 9, 2004
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. TechGeekPro

    billyw Guest

    if the source has anything to do with a government agency i wont belive it..
    BUT, if it is from a winno or some other upstanding member of the community
    i might, just might believe it
     
    billyw, Apr 9, 2004
    #63
  4. This is a semantically argument, which I *HATE* to participate in, but in
    this case it is an important one.

    "LOST" is an incredibly misleading term to describe the current issue of
    jobs. In January 2001 there were 137,790,000 jobs in the US. In March 2004
    there were 138,298,000. No jobs were lost, in fact 508,000 jobs have been
    FOUND under President Bush's term DESPITE a recession. But you, the Kerry
    campaign, and the media sources that lean left present 2.3 million "LOST"
    jobs under president Bush.

    To be more accurate: In January 2001 there were 143,787,000 people in the US
    civilian labor force. In March 2004 there were 146,650,000. That is an
    increase of 2,863,000 people to the work force. Subtract the 508,000 found
    jobs under president Bush from the increase of 2,863,000 to the work force
    and you have 2,355,000 (2.3 million) more people looking for work today than
    in January 2001. But far be it from those who want Bush out of the
    Whitehouse to present it as it really is. It's much more effective to say
    2.3 million jobs were "lost".
     
    Politician Spock, Apr 9, 2004
    #64
  5. All data can be argued that it doesn't accurately reflect what it
    represents. Eventually you get down to an argument that has no data to
    support it and one says "the economy is bad because I know it is bad". This
    seems to be the case for people who hate Bush, and their minds won't be
    changed despite the data that shows the economy growing.
     
    Politician Spock, Apr 9, 2004
    #65
  6. TechGeekPro

    Jtyc Guest

    if the source has anything to do with a government agency i wont belive
    it..

    Well then I shant be posting anything. But bls.gov has all the information
    for anyone who wishes to dig. Other sources are pay for view sites (f'n
    capitilists). Sites like www.dismalscientist.com.

    We have plenty of those around here so perhaps I shall start interviewing
    them when they ask me for change.
     
    Jtyc, Apr 9, 2004
    #66
  7. TechGeekPro

    Jtyc Guest

    There seem to be a few more jobs out there these days than in the

    Here's the funny part. Both sides of the argument will claim you support
    them.



    I'll do my part:

    See! Even Laura says there are more jobs!
     
    Jtyc, Apr 9, 2004
    #67
  8. TechGeekPro

    billyw Guest

    do you wish me to send you a questionaire..
    that way youre asking them consistent questions
     
    billyw, Apr 9, 2004
    #68
  9. TechGeekPro

    JaR Guest

    Politician Spock opined, On 4/9/04 6:10 AM:
    Or the opposite "the economy is good because I know it is good" For the
    Republicans whose minds can't be changed despite the data that shows the
    economy in rare danger of complete collapse.

    And for the record, I voted for Bush. I just don't think the direction
    our government has taken is going to benefit America or the west in the
    long run. The only winners I see are going to be the mega corporations
    and the very rich.
     
    JaR, Apr 9, 2004
    #69
  10. TechGeekPro

    Jtyc Guest

    do you wish me to send you a questionaire..
    That might help.
     
    Jtyc, Apr 9, 2004
    #70
  11. TechGeekPro

    JaR Guest

    Politician Spock opined, On 4/9/04 6:07 AM:
    No problem. You may win your semantic argument. But you said yourself,
    there are 2.3 million more people looking for work today than in Jan 2001.

    I repeat. You win! "lost" "Increase" WTFC!

    Inescapable fact; 2.3 million MORE people looking for work than in Jan 2001.

    I really could care less who wins the election in November. Kerry will
    probably end up being as bad or worse than Bush. He's as self-serving a
    politician as I have ever seen. I just want the government to pull it's
    head out of it's ass and stop raping the country for the benefit of a
    select few. If voting to get Bush out of office is what it takes, then
    so be it. I detest and pity both knee-jerk Republicans and Democrats
    that when faced with a position contrary to the party line mount some
    irrational argument supporting their position, and refuse to be swayed
    regardless of facts.

    It's like the devout Moslem/Christian/whatever that when questioned on
    their beliefs with foam at the mouth and rave that it must be true
    because Buddha/Allah/Whoever spake it to the beleivers who trancribed
    The Word into the Bible/Bagavad Gita/Whatever.

    Wherewith, I shall now cease my own foaming and return to my normally
    benign disposition.

    JaR
    Obtuse Thug
     
    JaR, Apr 9, 2004
    #71
  12. TechGeekPro

    JaR Guest

    Jtyc opined, On 4/9/04 7:14 AM:
    And even more humorous, they will both be right!
     
    JaR, Apr 9, 2004
    #72
  13. TechGeekPro

    Jtyc Guest

    Wherewith, I shall now cease my own foaming and return to my normally
    I'm concur.

    All politicians are douchebags and this country needs some serious policy
    reforms that probably won't happen.
     
    Jtyc, Apr 9, 2004
    #73

  14. But is that so unreasonable? The historical average for the unemployment
    rate is around 6%. 2.3 million more people looking for work is the number of
    people it took for the rate to return to average. There are two question
    here:

    1) Should the benchmark for a president be an unemployment rate that is
    above average? This is pretty unreasonable. When a president inherits an
    unemployment rate above average, the odds, given the law of averages, are
    that it's going to increase, which means net lost jobs.

    2) Are we going to drop below the historical average unemployment rate?
    Given the reducing number of Jobless Claims (the topic of this thread) and
    the last six months of 4.5% GDP growth, odds are we won't.
     
    Politician Spock, Apr 9, 2004
    #74
  15. Yet you have yet to provide that data, where as I have provided data showing
    economic growth.
     
    Politician Spock, Apr 9, 2004
    #75
  16. TechGeekPro

    Ken Briscoe Guest

    Are you implying we should be content with "average?"
    Hmm. Very valid point.

    <snip>
     
    Ken Briscoe, Apr 9, 2004
    #76

  17. Content? No.

    Ripping the president as an economic failure? You can if you want, but if an
    average unemployment rates is evidence of failure, than more than half the
    presidents in history are failures.
     
    Politician Spock, Apr 9, 2004
    #77
  18. TechGeekPro

    JaR Guest

    Politician Spock opined, On 4/9/04 9:22 AM:
    Again, I care less about benchmarking the president's performance. The
    situation was started at least four presidents ago. It is now merely
    reaching critical mass. The more important question than historical
    averages of net jobs, is what those jobs are! Are the new jobs being
    created full-time living wage jobs? No. The numbers of people without
    health insurance is at it's historically highest level at the same time
    that healthcare costs are skyrocketing. Is the govt trying to find a way
    to assist people with healthcare costs? No, they pass a panacea for
    medicare recipients that will help little, but assures a windfall for
    the pharmaceutical companies! The economy cannot be said to be on an
    upswing until real, living wage jobs are being created. Here! Not in
    Uzbekistan, India, or the Phillipines!
    Again, who cares? With an unemployed labor pool in the millions, workers
    that have lost their benefits and have settled for McJobs to try to keep
    the hounds at bay, and the continued pressure on business to offshore,
    the Jobless Claims numbers are less than meaningless. If the goverment
    had voted for anothe extension of benefits, where would those Jobless
    Claims pecentages be at, I wonder?

    As far as GDP growth, without corresponding employment growth, it is
    MEANINGLESS!

    Now look what ya done. I was all set to return to tranquility.

    JaR
    Tranquil Thug
     
    JaR, Apr 9, 2004
    #78
  19. TechGeekPro

    Jtyc Guest

    that healthcare costs are skyrocketing. Is the govt trying to find a way
    Healthcare is sky rocketing because of government involvment.

    If you want to be successful, you have to be flexible. If nobody is buying
    your buggy whips anymore, I suggest you learn another trade. That's not the
    government's fault. It's progress. (Unless your an anarchist or Amish).

    Manufacturing jobs are down worldwide. Not just in the US, but worldwide.
    Why? Because of progress. Machines can do the work that people used to do.
    Those jobs are never coming back. If all you could do was weld three spots
    on the frame of a car, guess what, you are out of luck.

    The IT world is constantly changing. It used to be that nobody knew how to
    do HTML. Now every tom dick what's his face knows how to do it so why
    should they be paying people high salaries for a simple job? Same with
    adding and removing permissions from a server. Any putz can do that, it's
    not a high paying job.
     
    Jtyc, Apr 9, 2004
    #79
  20. I could be convinced of this with legitimate supporting data.
    A better way for the government to help people with healthcare costs in lieu
    of just assisting them in paying the inflated prices it is to illiminate the
    incredible overhead of legal costs that just get passed on to the patients.
    This they are working on.
    If it weren't profitable for them to make new drugs, why would they research
    them? The government has to take care of both the consumer and the business
    interests.
    Then we are talking apples and oranges, because by economists definitions
    the economy is on an upswing. You seem to go by a completely different set
    of definitions.
    Given a labor force of 146,650,000 you would have to have an unemployment
    rate of 0.68% to get an unemployed labor pool below of the millions. It's an
    unreasonable expectation. Economists would also warn you that such a low
    unemployment rate would coincide with an incredibly high inflation rate.
    Even if the unemployment rate drops a 0.1% in a year, you still have a net
    loss of jobs in the hundreds of thousands. So if you believe employment
    growth is a positive growth in net jobs you eventually have to reach zero
    which is unreasonable. You've given me numerous reason to not hold on to
    your definitions of employment and economic growth.
     
    Politician Spock, Apr 9, 2004
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.