Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Unemployment rate drops to lowest level in 4.5 years. McDonald's, Burger King having to turn away potential applicants   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 331
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7741 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2006 at 11:57 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-20 04:18:34 PM  
Lies.

Damn lies.

Stastistics.

Discuss.
 
2006-04-20 04:28:44 PM  
To all the talking point shills:

Fine, unemployment is down. 2.1 million jobs created. Yeah, he's doing a fine job. Too bad he needed 15 million to keep up with immigration eh? Major Thom makes 3 TIMES AS MUCH as he did at some unspecified point in his past. Great, so do I. (I used to mow lawns part-time when I was in college.)

Here's a real measure for you. I got a 3% raise for this year. My healthcare contribution increased 12% (it was 20% overall, but my company ate the extra 8%.) How much did I *really* make? Gee, I lost ground. Now, I *could* take a second job, or go looking for one in the field(s) for which I am trained. The problem is that most of the jobs in my field are currently being done by people in a foreign land, and I have no desire to move to India/Madagascar/Bumfuk. Plus, I still have healthcare, which most service jobs that I could readily and easily get (should my current employment end) do NOT provide.

But how, if so many people are *losing ground* could our economy be doing so "well"?

Simple: Logistics, & military-industrial. If you're involved with moving goods from place to place, you're doing better. Why? The gutting/underfunding of our rail system puts more trucks on the road. Making products overseas instead of here puts (you guessed it) more trucks on the road. More trucks on the road means more road wear, so it's a good time to be in asphalt/road maintenance too, or a truck mechanic. (Of course, more trucks on the road increases fuel usage... and we won't EVEN go there.)

We're at war right now. We're going to be at war for a good long time to come. It's a good time to be in the Military-industrial complex. Time to get your engineering degree and go design a better bomb or light-tactical armour.

So yes, *some* sectors will see growth in any economy.

\If I lose my job, I will probably be in logistics immediately thereafter.
\A humaities/liberal arts degree is not worth the paper it is printed on, but you can lick the gold fligree for nourishment.
 
2006-04-20 04:30:37 PM  

The personal savings rate does not include unrealized capital gains or appreciation in home equity, if memory serves.


Of course, even if you're well-off enough to own your house, increasing value may only mean higher property taxes unless you enjoy borrowing against your primary residence or are willing to move.

 
2006-04-20 04:31:31 PM  
...go looking for one in the field(s) for which I am trained. The problem is that most of the jobs in my field are currently being done by people in a foreign land

If you're in IT I say bull-shiat
 
2006-04-20 04:34:41 PM  
The only effect Bush has had on the economy is the death of the publishing industry.
 
2006-04-20 04:39:49 PM  
AgentArc --
I doubt that "fighting outsourcing", which would increase wage pressures and the overall cost of doing business, would reduce inflation.
 
2006-04-20 04:42:00 PM  
The only effect Bush has had on the economy is the death of the publishing industry.

Seems like bush bashing book publishing is a cottage industry that has done well under his administration.
 
2006-04-20 04:49:19 PM  
Everyone remember, one of the first things Bush did whe he was elected the first time was consider fast food cook a manufacturing job to Enron the numbers for that sector.
 
2006-04-20 05:04:42 PM  
remirol

Nope; learn to read. In 2001 we were pretty screwed up and at the tail end of the dot-bomb crash. Is anyone surprised by the fact that we're in a lot better shape now?

It was going to get better even if we had followed your pet hamster's fiscal policies. When everything has just gone in the toilet, there's noplace to go but up.


Thanks for proving my point. You sir, just proved EXACTLY my point. In 2001 we weren't "in the toilet." Considering we were still the biggest economic superpower, I'd say we definitely had room to go down, you dumbass.

If you think that the U.S. in 2001 was "in the toilet," then you are an idiot and this is why I could never be a liberal because I cannot agree with anything you guys say. This is farking ridiculous.

And you are double retarded because fiscal policy is even MORE important during a recession. How could you say that "a hamster's fiscal policies" would have improved the economy too. Have you ever heard of the great depression? AKA: the government had no farking clue how to do fiscal policy, so we had a major depression. You sir, are an ignorant shmuck.
 
2006-04-20 05:36:18 PM  
How can you people be concerned about unemployment when they just raised the chocolate ration to three grammes!?

/celebration time
//come on
 
2006-04-20 05:38:15 PM  
2006-04-20 12:08:01 PM Major Thomb

It's amazing how that little letter after a politician's name can make people ignore reality.

and

John Kerry liked to lie and just use select numbers during the election hoping voters were too ignorant to notice. Apparently 50 million or so were.


Once again, for the record...

In this thread, Major Thomb said:

Sorry, ignorant and illogical generalization bugs me. It's the thinking pattern that is the source of so many of the problems in the world. Pick your race/religion/country/whatever, stereotype it, hate it, and get other people to join in.


Feeling hypocritical again today, are we??

I'm never letting this one go.



PS
Yea, was I was scraping quarters together

To quote you,
"Was that supposed to make sense?"


Jackass.
 
2006-04-20 05:49:40 PM  
well i'll celebrate when I have a job until then i will remain skeptical

/college grad in 16 days
 
2006-04-20 05:53:49 PM  
Will somebody send me some food? I'm running out of butter beans and ramen noodles.
 
2006-04-20 06:11:28 PM  
Shadow9 - depends on what you're into. My husband and I just got decent jobs in the last month, and we live near Ann Arbor (Dundee).
 
2006-04-20 06:17:17 PM  
Unemployment rate drops to lowest level in 4.5 years. McDonald's, Burger King having to turn away potential applicants

When unemployement is low, doesn't that mean that there is a shortage of workers?

Wouldn't that mean that McD's and BK would be practically offering free blowjobs to every interviewee?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2006-04-20 06:22:29 PM  
Are ya sure they got this guy's ap?

media.msnbc.msn.com



Really, I think that ANY of the tradiational common economic indicators matter anymore, least of all unemployment. It's definition has been changed so much that it's a pure apple to oranges comparison. The rest of them are measuring the health of the corporate elete and nothing else.

You don't hear any of the talking point robots say anything about the fact that the job market is "great" but wages are going down... how the hell does that happen in a healthy economy driven by markets??? Our economy is screwed as long as the Government represents everyone who is for the wholesale extermination of the Middle Class.
 
2006-04-20 06:38:27 PM  
Is anyone here doing work that's worth doing?
 
2006-04-20 06:55:05 PM  
Dr._Love

Enjoyed your little hate rant there? LOL

So what was your point? That in one economic period the natural rate of unemployment parallels that in another period?

I know you extreme left wingers like to pretend and make up stuff, but no one here, or ever, said that Clinton had high unemployment figures, so were you just arguing with yourself?
 
2006-04-20 07:06:22 PM  
Cerebral Ballsy

Um, no? Facts, they sure are annoying...

photos1.blogger.com


It's old, but the newest numbers haven't changed by much. Yes, we do spend most other countries %-wise, but not by an astounding margin.
 
2006-04-20 08:13:45 PM  
Beware liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans. They're playing you on the drama triangle.

triangle

We get suckered into picking one or the other, and it's more important to us to stick it to the other guy than to consider what is right or wrong.

I'm not making a dent, am I?
 
2006-04-20 08:24:39 PM  
I could also choose to describe this as:
"Unemployment almost back to levels it was at when Bush took office"

sv1.randomcrap.net

Sources:
Graph courtesy of bls.gov
Current unemployment indicators
Comparing March unemployment statistics

/picking your statistics carefully can prove anything.
 
2006-04-20 08:53:09 PM  
eddyatwork: Unemployment numbers only reflect the number of people who apply for unemployment benefits. They do not reflect the people who have exhausted their benefits, people who are ineligible for unemployment compensation, people who are working at a full time job that is out of their field, people working a part time job, or people who have simply given up and moved back with their parents.

If the true unemployment and underemployment figures were ever released, people would be horrified to see how bad things are.


suebhoney: Unemployment numbers only reflect those who are currently receiving unemployment benefits along with the people who recently applied.

This particular report is only saying that compared to the previous report, 10,000 less this time applied for benefits.

These numbers do not reflect those who are no longer eligible for unemployment and still out of work.

/wishes they'd release true numbers


I'm sure you two were at the front of the firing line screaming about how the Clinton Administration would "release the true numbers" when unemployment was low during his terms of office.

/Wait a minute... YOU WEREN'T!
 
2006-04-20 08:55:41 PM  
Robobagpiper: YoungSwedishBlonde: Yes, we're about 2.1 million up overall since Bush took office.

Woot! He might even make 15% of the job growth numbers under Clinton by the time he leaves office.

/remember, when you want to succeed, define success downward


Yes, because Clinton had to deal with a global war on terror and a major recession when the dot-com bubble popped. Oh wait a minute, he didn't! How about all those jobs during Clinton's term that went bye bye once the tech crash happened? Those don't count for much now, do they?

/Your bridge is lonely without you, troll.
 
2006-04-20 08:56:07 PM  
www.arete-eci.com
 
2006-04-20 09:00:13 PM  
Robobagpiper: Also often forgotten in the Bush team's downward definition of economic success: it takes about 150,000 new jobs a month to keep up with the growing workforce (source: economist Paul Krugman).

So there would have needed to have been 9.5 million jobs, not 2.1 million, just to keep up.

Sorry, but 2.1 million is not success. It's dismal.


When you quote Paul Krugman in an economics debate, that is like quoting Stephen Hawlking in an argument about marathon running.
 
2006-04-20 09:28:51 PM  
I don't know of any rich people who aren't doing well, so what is the complaining about?
 
2006-04-21 01:08:19 AM  
simpsonfan, do you see many factories being replaced with McDonalds?
 
2006-04-21 03:14:32 AM  
vosgienne

LUXEMBOURG IS TICKING ME OFF
 
2006-04-21 09:37:54 AM  
Wolfanoz: Bush responds to Hu's "me Chinese, me play joke" comment


what the hell was going on there? it looks like jintao is about to make a kung-fu circling motion with his arm to break bush's grip.
 
2006-04-21 11:31:02 AM  
methinks The Billdozer needs a bottle and a nap.
 
2006-04-21 01:37:05 PM  
I'm realize I'm kind of late to this thread, but can someone please explain the headline? If unemployment is low, then there are fewer people out there being forced to settle for low-paying jobs like McDonald's, so why would these places need to turn them away? That only makes sense if unemployment were high, right?

I guess what I'm saying is it seems like the submitter was way off the mark with whatever joke he was trying to make.

/Or I'm just really dense
 
Displayed 31 of 331 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report