Bush is Great for the Economy!!!

[Doctorb]

Here's Why!!!

[Doctorb]

The 5.7 percent jobless rate, down 0.2 percentage point from November, was the lowest since October 2002. The decline didn't reflect new hiring, but frustrated workers, almost 310,000, who left the labor force. The government's rate counts only people actively seeking work.

 

Hurrah!!!

[catbirdseat]

We're going to need to build some Hoovervilles in which to put all the jobless people who have lost their homes.

 

"The economy has lost about 2.3 million jobs since he took office, giving him the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover."

[HRoark]

We're going to need to build some Hoovervilles in which to put all the jobless people who have lost their homes.

 

"The economy has lost about 2.3 million jobs since he took office, giving him the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover."

 

One thing I've always thought was bullshit was the mistaken belief that it's the President's job, or government's in general, to "create jobs." I know they all promise this when they are campaigning, but it is so fucking idiotic. Get off your dead ass and create your own opportunities.

[willstrickland]

Yeeesss, Dr. B, indeed my good man. Your quote from the article there sounds quite similar to something I said in an earlier thread:

 

You should know something about labor stats: You are only classified "unemployed" if you are actively seeking work. If you've realized after two fruitless years that there's no where else to look until the economic picture changes, you are technically not "unemployed". Some labor stats also use unemployment claims as a basis of calculation. So if your unemployment benefits run out, you're not taken into account.

 

I often hear reports that "unemployment claims are down for the last two quarters.." Well NO SHIT, people have exhausted their benefits and still don't have a job...they CAN'T file a claim. If the economic situation stays the same, claims will eventually go down without any change in unemployed people.

[willstrickland]

[willstrickland]

I see weapons of mass destruction!!

 

[willstrickland]

[Peter_Puget]

Ah Will "minor man" Strickland -

 

Check out the stats at: Link

 

Or check out the attache graph.

 

PP

Edited January 9, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[willstrickland]

Ah Peter "the price is Right" Puget -

 

I checked out the stats in your link (nice database btw) and here is what I found:

 

In Dec 2000, the unemployment rate was 3.9%, the labor force participation rate was 67%

 

In Dec 2003, the unemployment rate was 5.7%, the labor force participation rate was 66%

 

 

That's an effective increase in unemployment of 2.8%

 

Of course one could attribute the participation rate dip to an aging population...alternatively one could attribute it to exhausted unemployment and discouraged workers temporarily leaving the labor force. One might interpret these numbers to mean that today's equivalent rate of unemployment, when compared to Dec 2000, is actually 6.7%

[Peter_Puget]

 

Please Will; stop the insanity!

 

PP

[mr.radon]

My solution is to kick out the 8-10 million illigals and take there jobs. Think about it, you could create millions of jobs overnight.

But I guess most people would rather stay unemployed because it pays more then most of the jobs these people hold.

[Dru]

3.9% to 5.7% is a diff of 1.8% not 2.8%

[Dru]

kick out the 8-10 million illigals and take there jobs. Think about it, you could create millions of jobs overnight.

 

Yea, 1, 000, 000 new immigration cops

[willstrickland]

Duh...notice the "effective" term? Add the 1% increase in people who left the labor force and you have 2.8% math wiz.

[Peter_Puget]

I read this comment regarding Bush's new immigrant proposal:

 

 

[/i]To all this add the following: no longer will de facto guest workers be recorded, by Census, BLS, and others, as if analytically/economically identical to native-born citizens or formally-legal immigrants. And as this happens the entire indictment -- Dickensian poverty, intergenerational stagnation, and intolerable disparities between super rich and super poor -- will shatter and come crashing down on The Nation magazine, Paul Krugman, and lots of startled others.[/i]

 

PP

[Peter_Puget]

Fuzzy math Will...egads!

[Dru]

Hmmmm

 

Don't you have to actually calculate the total numbers and then recalculate the % from that?

 

Cause the population probably grew over that time too

 

Like in 2000, there were 310 million ppl, of whom 200 million weere in the labour force, of whom 190 million were employed. In 2003, there were 320 million, of whom etc.

[willstrickland]

Nope, I put it there in plain numbers for ya, nothing fuzzy about that. Gave you the data, gave you my conclusion. Just because Drool read it for a way to instigate rather for comprehension doesn't make it fuzzy.

[Peter_Puget]

No I am saying you spewing BS, Dru had nothing to do with it.

 

PP

[willstrickland]

Hmmmm

 

Don't you have to actually calculate the total numbers and then recalculate the % from that?

 

Cause the population probably grew over that time too

 

Like in 2000, there were 310 million ppl, of whom 200 million weere in the labour force, of whom 190 million were employed. In 2003, there were 320 million, of whom etc.

 

The data is expressed as a percent of population (over 16 yrs old in this case) rather than a number so as to have a basis of comparison between years, months, etc. Your proposition is already inherent in the numbers.

[willstrickland]

No I am saying you spewing BS, Dru had nothing to do with it.

 

PP

 

Get over yourself PP. I used the stats from your link brah. If it's BS, it's BS you posted.

[Dru]

But Will that's my whole point.... this is how you get the weird stats like where # of jobs and # of unemployed both increase over time...by giving us the simple stats you & PP have little meaning attached.

 

Why don't you just go straight to the battlecage instead of putting random numbers up in an attempt to "prove" something...

 

All I know is the US dollar is still in free fall pushing loonie, yen, and Euro up to 10 year highs making my BD express screws cheaper to buy

[Peter_Puget]

Dru what goofy stats did I present?

 

Here's on ereason why the dollar won't "freefall":

 

GOVERNMENT DEBT AND PENSION LIABILITIES AS PERCENT OF GDP (1990)

===net conventional debt=======net pension liabilities

CANADA===52================121

GERMANY==22================157

ITALY====100================259

UK=======27================156

US=======35=================90

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Essays on Pension Reform, Max Alier PhD Thesis, University of California LA, 1997; quoted in R.E.A. Farmer, Macroeconomics, South-Western, 2002, p. 162.

[willstrickland]

Ok Dru, here's an attempt at clarifying why these aren't meaningless stats:

 

Population is growing at some rate "x". The economy is growing at some rate "y". If the economy is suffering though a bad period and x and y (remember, we're talking rates) stay the same there will be both an increase in # of jobs as well as an increase in # of unemployed.

 

Say job growth and pop growth are cruising along at 3%, the economy suddenly tanks, job growth goes to 1%, pop growth stays 3%...you get the situation you described, increased number of jobs and increased number of unemployed.