shed some light on my ignorance

I just have to rant... it irks me it whenever I hear about the data for initial jobless claims is declining and that our good buddy Al Greenspan keeps insisting that the economy is doing better and is hinting at a rate increase.

Well guys... the initial unemployment job claims is just that... intitial. We’re bottoming out in terms of maintaining a skeleton staff... meaning that we have individuals maintaining the workload meant for two or more. So can they layoff any more individuals? Probably not. To me, this hints at the possibility that they cannot afford to have any more workers laid-off. Could this be why the initial job claims are down? There is no correlation with this possibility to the hinting that job creation is up.

Looking at the department of labor statistics, we see that the largest percentage increases are in areas such as hospitality and other service/tourist industries but normalize that number to that of manufacturing or information services; that number begins to look relatively miniscule; so much so that it does not appear to make much of an impact in the aggregated number of job creation in the country.

Spinning the numbers to support their claims is what I am frustrated at.

Here’s another one... inflation... more specifically, the fact that some finance analysts are referring to as wage-inflation. Wage inflation by definition relies on the premise that there is a shortage of qualified workers. I would argue that we do not have a shortage of qualified workers. One industry comes to mind is that of information technology and semiconductors. Areas of manufacturing would qualify as well. It is hard to say with the number of unemployed and displaced information technologists in the east and west coast of the US, that we have a shortage of qualified individuals.

On the topic of wage-inflation, the contention is that because these companies have to be competitive to entice qualified candidates, they must provide a more than competitive package to secure the services of qualified candidates. This in turn effectively increases the expense in benefits and compensation; ultimately cutting into the bottom line (a good baseline is that 70% of all expenses is labor and associated expenses). In order to maintain their current margins, the price must increase (or efficiencies in manufacturing must increase; hinting at an increase in sales volume) to maintain favorability from the board and other such stakeholders. Therefore, economists, let me qualify, republican economists, assert that this is in part the most significant reason why inflation occurs... and why does it occur? Because its the workers' fault for asking for competitive wages.

Where is the logic in this thinking? Initial jobless claim numbers don't paint the whole picture. Granted, I don't know the specifics of how the unemployment numbers are arrived at, but how does the government account for the number of jobless whose unemployment claims have expired? Or those that could not find a job but have gone back to school while still looking for a job? How are these individuals taken into account? If the unemployment rate is defined as those who are seeking a job but cannot find a job, how is the government getting an accurate number? All I see is the initial unemployment claim numbers. This is part of a picture but I suspect that this statistic is only there as it shows a decline in unemployment claims month by month... effectively supporting the claim of economic recovery.

Where are the new job creations? Which area and percentage increases normalized to which industry? Or how about just some absolute numbers? I can look up the numbers from the department of labor but why do they not include this in their articles? Does it paint a less rosy picture? Probably.

I know these numbers are only part of the picture and I’m disappointed in the fact that these are the only numbers that these analysts focus on.

Am I missing something? Or is the economy really that great in the US right now?

Okay… I’ll stop now…

Our company is doing fantastic. We just expanded to another office in Miami to handle a wider variety of property management. We don't hire service staff - we hire technical positions.

The service positions are always there and the number of them expand with the population. Aside from that, the reality is that Americans can't compete in manufacturing area without putting in terrifs (bad idea) and I'm all for free market. What that means is that unless you have technical skill or have a service to market, you're not going to get a high salary to put shit together on a line.

Unemployment is at a 20 year low. Real wages have started to climb a bit, but they are lagging (one of the last indicators of the economy being fully back). My portfolio is doing nicely. Inflation is low. Prices are dropping. Things are not fantastic but they are on the right track.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The biggest problem is that every group fixes the numbers to make themselves look better or to make their opponents look bad.

Very soon there will be a shortage in workers in America. There is a very large group of baby boomers getting ready to retire. When that happens whoever is in office at that time will get all the glory. At least for a short time. Then the sh*t will hit the fan. All those retirees will need to get medicade payments and retirement packages. Those retirement packages will put a lot of employers under. Those medicade benifits will cost taxpayers more money then they are willing to pay. Health care cost will skyrocket and drug companies will get even more wealthy. We are starting to see the beginnings of it now. I have a feeling we are in for a rough ride.

Our company is doing fantastic. We just expanded to another office in Miami to handle a wider variety of property management. We don't hire service staff - we hire technical positions. .
Aren't MOST companies doing better?

Unemployment is at a 20 year low. Real wages have started to climb a bit, but they are lagging (one of the last indicators of the economy being fully back). My portfolio is doing nicely. Inflation is low. Prices are dropping. Things are not fantastic but they are on the right track.
I can't understand why the nay-sayers keep ignoring these facts!

Again, most of them wouldn't recognize facts/truth if they bit them on their Michael Moores!

The light is GLARING on your ignorance.

My ignorance is glaring thus I must ask in kind...

How is unemployment defined and how does it take into account the displaced workers (eg the educated technical professionals who are now answering phones for a wage)? This should, at the very least, question our government’s surveying criteria.

YogsVR4, Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is not at a 20 year low… a quick check at the Department of Labor’s website (www.dol.gov) would show that the all time low was in 2000 and has been on the rise until recently (national unemployment rate ref @ year end).

thegladhatter, you are quick to attack but yet share no support for your claims. Very insightful. Thank you for that. Your quips amuse not enthuse.

My question is simple. Where is the job creation? Percentages don’t make much sense as absolute numbers paint a more accurate picture.

the Department of Labor’s website (www.dol.gov) would show that the all time low was in 2000 and has been on the rise until recently (national unemployment rate ref @ year end).

So....since we have had George Bush in the Presidency...the unemployment rate has improved...YOU proved my point.

Again, most of them wouldn't recognize facts/truth if they bit them on their Michael Moores!


it's still not funny dude.

So....since we have had George Bush in the Presidency...the unemployment rate has improved...YOU proved my point.

2000 bush didn't officially take over till 2001. meaning that it has been dropping over bushs term. i think clinton was responible for the employment increase not bush.

it's still not funny dude.
The TRUTH STILL hurts doesn't it...Dude?
2000 bush didn't officially take over till 2001. meaning that it has been dropping over bushs term. i think clinton was responible for the employment increase not bush.
THAT is total bullshiite! The unemployment rate HAS improved during the Bush administration! Sure, there ARE people who are unemployed. I feel sorry for them, but things ARE improving, and the nay-sayers still ignore that fact.

The TRUTH STILL hurts doesn't it...Dude?

:rofl: you really are a funny guy. i just wanted to point out that your shot at being witty just makes you look like a "michael moore" as you put it.


THAT is total bullshiite! The unemployment rate HAS improved during the Bush administration! Sure, there ARE people who are unemployed. I feel sorry for them, but things ARE improving, and the nay-sayers still ignore that fact.

alright so it seems that the unemployment rate is dropping my bad. no need to get offended.

My ignorance is glaring thus I must ask in kind...

How is unemployment defined and how does it take into account the displaced workers (eg the educated technical professionals who are now answering phones for a wage)? This should, at the very least, question our government’s surveying criteria.

YogsVR4, Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is not at a 20 year low… a quick check at the Department of Labor’s website (www.dol.gov (http://www.dol.gov/)) would show that the all time low was in 2000 and has been on the rise until recently (national unemployment rate ref @ year end).

thegladhatter, you are quick to attack but yet share no support for your claims. Very insightful. Thank you for that. Your quips amuse not enthuse.

My question is simple. Where is the job creation? Percentages don’t make much sense as absolute numbers paint a more accurate picture.

You're absolutly right about the unemployment numbers. I did mean to say that it was the highest in the last 20 years for a incumbent to run on. Though thats not really all that important.
As for people answering phones (or the like) that are educated professionals. That’s has always happened. It’s not a new phenomenon. You will want to look at real wages as well as employment numbers to see how the job market is doing. Looking at any handful of people is not a representative of the whole. Real wages have started to climb after being stagnant for over a year. With static unemployment rates (though its dropped, its been pretty consistent) that means that the job market is providing higher wage jobs then it was has.

The market sets the wages. The market sets the job. A president can only help the market – he cannot just push a button to set employment. The president (along with congress) can cut taxes and reduce red tape to make it easier for businesses to succeed. The government is given to much credit and blame over job numbers. Only countries with a communist in charge can look to the government for employment woes.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

THAT is total bullshiite! The unemployment rate HAS improved during the Bush administration! Sure, there ARE people who are unemployed. I feel sorry for them, but things ARE improving, and the nay-sayers still ignore that fact.

the unemployment rate was 4 % when clinto left office and now it is 5.4%, so how is this an improvement? the only improvement is the fact that a year ago it was higher then it is now but hey it's still higher than when clinton was in office. if you don't believe me go to www.dol.com and see for yourself. of course you won;t you'll just bash me for thinking differently then you. :screwy:

the unemployment rate was 4 % when clinto left office and now it is 5.4%, so how is this an improvement?
Never mind the facts, or the truth, so long as people want to believe that the president has improved employment, the truth doesn't matter.
However, why they're even trying to suggest this, I don't know, because the president's effect on employment is minimal. Saying that GWB is largely responsible for unemployment dropping or raising, is like saying that an extra in a movie is responsible for the film getting oscar nominated for best motion picture of the year.