|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 14th, 2004 06:25 PM | ||
| MLE | do you conciously try to avoid using contractions in order to make yourself sound smarter? | |
| Jan 14th, 2004 06:17 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
For all Max talks about my "knee-jerk" reaction, however, most of it's points have not been refuted. I got those job statistics off of predictions by a few economists on MSNBC. If recall, one had received the Nobel Prize at some point...\ And for GOD'S SAKE, stop calling me little Friedman!!! I disagree with Friedman on so many epistemological grounds that it is frightening!!! |
|
| Jan 14th, 2004 10:25 AM | ||
| Dole | When unemployment was 3 million plus under the conservatives over here they were CONSTANTLY fucking with the monthly unemployment figures, every month for about a year and a half they would remove another category of people from the figures for some ludicrous reason...it would give the impression of decreasing figures but even the most cursory glance below the surface revelaed the bullshit they were peddling. | |
| Jan 14th, 2004 09:45 AM | ||
| ziggytrix | In all fairness, I bet Bush didn't know either. | |
| Jan 14th, 2004 09:37 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Little Milton Friedman shouldn't feel bad for not knowing how unemployemnt is calculated. Most people don't, and most people don't know that if your unemployment runs out you are shit out of luck. The adminstration counts on you not knowing when they paint their rosy pictures. Little Milton, SHOULD however blame himself for his knee jerk reaction to the article. He fancies himself a Liberatarian but falls squarely into the 'Oh, they just hate Bush' camp. There's no 'just' about it. I hate Bush on viceral personal levels, it's true, but devoid of all that, it's easy to hate what a bad president he is. Counting on the general public not knowing that the unemployment stats are not based on the actual number of people out of work is the sort of cynical shit that makes me hate him. |
|
| Jan 14th, 2004 01:29 AM | ||
| glowbelly | pretty much, yeah. | |
| Jan 13th, 2004 11:28 PM | ||
| Sergeant_Tibbs |
To collect unemployment you have to show that you've applied for at least 6 jobs a month, each month you're on it, or something like that. So if you couldn't find a job by the time your unemployment runs out, even if your looking for a job still, you're not part of the work force, right? |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 10:55 PM | ||
| El Blanco | But how does filing or not filing mean they are or aren't looking? | |
| Jan 13th, 2004 10:12 PM | ||
| glowbelly |
yup. i was on unemployment after getting laid off from my job. now i'm in school. i could have applied for additional benefits, but they would only be extended for a measly 13 weeks. not worth it considering that i have taxes coming up, and right now i am just breaking even on that front. |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 09:21 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | Federal unemployment is limited. Once you're out of work for 6 months, even if you don't find a job, you're cut off. They don't give ya no more. So you can't file any more claims. | |
| Jan 13th, 2004 08:54 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Why would they stop filing unemployent claims? If it is conditional on that you atempt to find work, why not just make token tries and keep getting the checks? |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 08:25 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | I'm just guessing, but I would say they probably look at how many people have stopped filing unemployment claims vs. how many new jobs are reported to the Labor Bureau. I could be completely wrong; that's just a guess. | |
| Jan 13th, 2004 08:09 PM | ||
| El Blanco | Just out of curiosity, how exactly do they determine how many people just stop looking? | |
| Jan 13th, 2004 07:49 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Well, now that has been clarified. Although I did know that retirees were subtracted from the number. I didn't get the sense that these guys are officially retiring... | |
| Jan 13th, 2004 06:44 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people divided by the total labor force, which as it turns out, does not include people who aren't looking for work. If it did, it would have to take into account, among others, people who are either too old or too young to work. It's something I learned when I took Economics. |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 06:29 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
The economy has revived. Jobs are the last thing to come back into the economy after a recession. I thought unemployment encompassed all of those who do not work, for whatever the reason. |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 06:17 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Unemployment would not stay the same, doofus. When people stop looking for work, they are *gasp* no longer looking for work. Which means they are no longer considered part of the work force, which means they are no longer considered "unemployed." Which, in turn, cuts the number of "unemployed" people. A good economy does have jobs. Our economy has jobs, they just keep getting shipped to other countries. And the above article is not the only place I've seen those numbers. I'd like to see your sources, and the Cato Institute doesn't count. And, if you may pull your young head out, you'll see very clearly that Bush isn't being blamed for the economy, he's being blamed for lying about its condition. Which he is. While Bush may have inherited an economy that was recession-bound, it is his administration's policies which have kept it there. Your last paragraph is such a mess that I'm not even going to address it. Turn it into something resembling English, and we'll talk. |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 06:09 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
Let's say that there are 10 people in the labor force. 5 have jobs, and 5 are unemployed (which means that they are looking for a job). That means that the unemployment rate is 50%. Now, let's say that 2 of the unemployed people stop looking for work, meaning that they are out of the labor force and as such, out of the calculation. That means that 3 out of 8 people are unemployed, which means that the unemployment rate is 37.5%. You see how great math is? |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 06:04 PM | ||
| Buffalo Tom |
Quote:
I think you should stay at the kids' table this year during Thanksgiving. |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 05:48 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
If people stopped looking for work, unemployment would either 1. stay the same if you are talking about the currently unemployed or 2. rise if people stopped working. I don't see how unemployment could drop from this. Not only that, but you think of a good economy as one with lots of jobs. Hint: that is not the only factor in the economy. Even so, I've never heard such optimistic estimates for Dec. 2003... FROM ANYONE. "Most economists" expect 2004 to have only a very, very moderate rate of job growth, possibly lowering the unemployment rate to 5.5-5.3 by the end of the year. Another repulsive trait of this article is that it seems to think that the president is to blame for this. Try again - our friend Greenspan leads the economy far more than those in other offices. Let's not forget that Bush came in on a recession. Perhaps the most disgusting thing about this article is that it tries to disprove the correlation between tax cuts for small business owners and job growth with empirical "facts" (I quote because the one about he economic preditions seems quite fudged). The economy is not some scientific experiment - there are too many uncontrollable variables to treat it as such. In short, I find this absolutely abhorrent. |
|
| Jan 13th, 2004 12:29 PM | ||
| Buffalo Tom | Does anyone exist that doesn't buy the Nero analogy, when they think about Dubya's presidency? | |
| Jan 13th, 2004 12:15 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Luckliy, he already has a job. Bush Twice Tries to Mislead America About the Economy in 24 Hours Within a span of 24 hours, President Bush twice attempted to mislead the American people about the economy and his tax policies. On Friday, the president said, "Unemployment dropped today to 5.7% [which] is a positive sign that the economy is getting better."1 But the president didn't add that the unemployment drop occurred not because the economy was getting better, but because continued weak job growth led 309,000 people to stop looking for work.2 As one nonpartisan economist said, "Most of these dropouts would still be in the labor force working or trying to work if the economy were doing better," The president made no mention that only 1,000 total jobs were created in December - a "shockingly low number," where most economists had expected job growth to be around 100,000 to 150,000 for the month.3 33 months after the beginning of the recession, this recovery is distinguished from all previous cycles of job contraction and resumed growth since 1939, according to the Economic Policy Institute, for not having fully recovered job levels to those above the pre-recessionary peak within 31 months from its start. The following day, the president touted the same economic policies that helped create the unemployment crisis. Despite the bad economic news, he said, "Tax relief has got this economy going again," and bragged, "every American who pays income taxes got a tax cut."4 His use of the phrase "income tax," however, was tailored to divert attention from the millions of low-income American taxpayers (who pay payroll tax but not income tax) who received nothing. Bush's 2001 tax cut completely excluded 31% of all families in America.5 Similarly, Bush's 2003 tax cut completely excluded 31% of all taxpayers6 - including one million children of military families.7 Sources: 1. President Speaks with Women Small Business Owners on the Economy, 01/09/2004. 2. "Falling jobless figure deceptive", Baltimore Sun, 01/10/2004. 3. "Changes in U.S. work force make accurate data elusive", International Herald Tribune, 01/13/2004. 4. President's Radio Address, 01/10/2004. 5. Bush Tax Plan Offers No Benefits to One in Three Families, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 02/07/2001. 6. Bush 2003 Tax Plan a Big Fat Zero for a Third of Nation’s Taxpayers Percentages with no tax cut are much higher in poorer states, Citizens for Tax Justice, 01/27/2003. 7. One Million Military Children Left Behind by Massive New Tax Package, Children's Defense Fund, 06/06/2003. |
|
