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.

(USA Today)   Bush said the economy is strong and jobs are plentiful. Also must break dependence on foreign oil. Amazingly, he said all this while keeping a straight face   (usatoday.com) divider line 49
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Sep 2006 at 1:03 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2006-09-04 04:13:54 PM
Its not like neolibbies use oil and electricity.
Neolibbies are the ones screaming the loudest when gas prices rise.
 
2006-09-04 04:22:32 PM
What, exactly, are "neolibbies?"

Or is that just a cute term you came up with by yourself?
 
2006-09-04 04:24:37 PM
dougske: Its not like neolibbies use oil and electricity.
Neolibbies are the ones screaming the loudest when gas prices rise.

Post of the day.


/for stupidity
 
2006-09-04 04:31:35 PM
Umm...the economy is doing incredibly well. Unemployment is at the lowest it has been in decades. You won't find too many Democrats speaking about the economy right now...
 
2006-09-04 04:34:28 PM
uatuba: Umm...the economy is doing incredibly well. Unemployment is at the lowest it has been in decades.

You may want to scroll ahead to the "wages" section of the recent reports.
 
2006-09-04 04:34:54 PM
submitter: he said all this while keeping a straight face

I call shenanigans. There's no way Bush said that without smirking.
 
2006-09-04 04:35:35 PM
Pocket Ninja, the only thing Democrats can say about wages is that they have "stagnated."

Hmm, low unemployment, wages that haven't risen but haven't dropped either--yeah, the economy is in the shiatter.
 
2006-09-04 04:39:07 PM
dougske must be mild7's older brother.
 
2006-09-04 04:40:38 PM
uatuba: Hmm, low unemployment, wages that haven't risen but haven't dropped either--yeah, the economy is in the shiatter.

Did I say it was in the shiatter?

No, you're making that up to make yourself sound like you have a point. Which you don't. The reality is that the most recent job reports are, at best, lukewarm--unemployment is down, but wages have dropped or, at best, remained utterly flat in the face of rising prices. Which means that more people are working more hours for less money. So, yeah, less homeless people on welfare tied to a continuing transition to a service-based economy in which more and more people will be qualified as "working poor."

Yeah, it's all smooth sailing ahead.
 
2006-09-04 04:55:28 PM
uatuba: Hmm, low unemployment, wages that haven't risen but haven't dropped either--yeah, the economy is in the shiatter.


The median hourly wage has actually fallen since 2003 when adjusted for inflation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ref=todayspaper


BTW, unemployment figures are notoriously crappy numbers with which to judge the economy because of people dropping off the rolls. The economy is indeed producing jobs, but below expectations and not at a particularly high rate.
 
2006-09-04 05:03:32 PM
Take a $100,000 Intel marketer tomorrow and have him/her flipping burgers for $6 an hour next week.

Yep - lotsa jobs, great economy.
 
2006-09-04 05:35:08 PM
Unemployment is pretty low. As low as it was with Clinton. I still have a job. Housing market is good. Where's the economic problem?
 
2006-09-04 05:45:04 PM
wydok: Where's the economic problem?

How about things like, "median family income, which grew 11.3 percent in the late 1900s, fell nearly 3 percent in the 2000s" From here.(pops)
 
2006-09-04 06:22:39 PM
uatuba: Hmm, low unemployment, wages that haven't risen but haven't dropped either

Median Wages Over The Past Six Years:

(courtesy Detroit Free Press)

www.washingtonmonthly.com

Yeah, yeah, sorry about those damn facts, but ...
 
2006-09-04 06:23:52 PM
kmmontandon: Median Wages


That should read "Median Incomes", actually, although I'm sure a Median Wages chart of the past six years wouldn't be an improvement.
 
2006-09-04 10:09:09 PM
2006-09-04 04:13:54 PM dougske [TotalFark]

Its not like neolibbies


You've been pushing your little term for months and no ones biting, so give it up, boy.

2006-09-04 06:22:39 PM kmmontandon [TotalFark]

uatuba: Hmm, low unemployment, wages that haven't risen but haven't dropped either


The current stats show the nascent emergence of stagflation. Stagflation is a word that has a similar effect on econimists nerves as 'potato famine' does on the Irish.
It scares the bejesus out of them. The is the run-up of debt coming to call.
 
2006-09-04 10:12:54 PM
uatuba Hmm, low unemployment, wages that haven't risen but haven't dropped either

The official "unemployment rate" in the U.S. is misleading. It is based on the number of civilian workers over the age of 16 actively seeking work. All other members of the population who are without full-time employment are not included in those statistics

Currently those excluded from the "unemployment rate" include:
* Inactively seeking work
* Full-time education
* Self-employed
* Early retirement
* Disability or long-term ill health
* Overqualified workers in sub-skilled labor (ie, lawyer working as a checkout clerk)
* Underemployed due to a lack of work hours (aka, part time worker)
* Removed from society due to criminal incarceration
* Removed from society due to military service (includes National Guard and Reserves)

You show me lower unemployment numbers versus 30 years ago. Give me 30 minutes and I can whip out my hard set of facts that show a burgeoning prison population, a growing retiree population, millions of illegal aliens working for less than minimum wage and millions of underemployed workers. It is not as great as Karl Rove wants us to believe it.

We can thank free trade, a porous border, corrupt politicians, corrupt labor unions, greedy executives and a lazy workforce for all of it. Most of it could be easily fixed with a few simple changes to the law.
 
2006-09-04 10:13:10 PM
c'mon, kmmontandon, you know that there's lies, damn lies, and statistics, right?

what do you think is a better metric of where the economy is going: median incomes (not average, since our service-oriented economy increases income disparity, alas) since 2000 (right when a recession began and right before 9/11), or the trend in median incomes since the recession's close?

let me do the heavy lifting for you: adjusted for inflation, it's unchanged 02-03, 03-04, and up 04-05.

/damn skewed facts, stacked decks
//source
///disclaimer: i'm independent, defending no party, parrying only at lazy thinking and reporting that confirms what someone already wants to hear (yay, intellectual circle-jerk)
 
2006-09-04 10:18:07 PM
Victory Gin more abundant, chocolate rations up!
 
2006-09-04 10:25:12 PM
Dinjiin, you're right in regards to what numbers comprise the unemployment rate. two questions, then:

1) has this indicator always been defined as it currently is?
2) can we all agree that a decrease in the indicator is good?

if i'm gleaning what your argument is, that the classes of citzens you mention being out of the computation for those that are unemployed has consistently risen over time, i've got one response:

so has the population that's in the computation, and i'd maybe wager a Guinness that it's risen at a faster rate.

/hooray for delta and proportions, apples and oranges
 
2006-09-04 10:38:22 PM
dougske: Its not like neolibbies use oil and electricity.
Neolibbies are the ones screaming the loudest when gas prices rise.


Amusing, because the term "neoliberal" describes the economic policies of Ronald Reagan.
 
2006-09-04 10:41:46 PM
Dinjiin: The official "unemployment rate" in the U.S. is misleading. It is based on the number of civilian workers over the age of 16 actively seeking work. All other members of the population who are without full-time employment are not included in those statistics

Currently those excluded from the "unemployment rate" include:
* Inactively seeking work
* Full-time education
* Self-employed
* Early retirement
* Disability or long-term ill health
* Overqualified workers in sub-skilled labor (ie, lawyer working as a checkout clerk)
* Underemployed due to a lack of work hours (aka, part time worker)
* Removed from society due to criminal incarceration
* Removed from society due to military service (includes National Guard and Reserves)


Snopes disagrees. Apparently.
 
2006-09-04 10:53:03 PM
elchip: Snopes disagrees. Apparently.

Thanks for finding that. Seriously - you let a guy take econ 101 and he suddenly turns into Alan Greenspan.
 
2006-09-04 11:05:21 PM
anal brazil men: Thanks for finding that. Seriously - you let a guy take econ 101 and he suddenly turns into Alan Greenspan.

While we're at it, WTF does your username mean?
 
2006-09-04 11:12:33 PM
elchip: While we're at it, WTF does your username mean?

I am pretty sure it's an anagram of his real name...
 
2006-09-04 11:26:05 PM
The Onanist: I am pretty sure it's an anagram of his real name...

Yep.

RabbitHeadlights: c'mon, kmmontandon, you know that there's lies, damn lies, and statistics, right?

Statistics don't like. People do.
 
2006-09-04 11:58:55 PM
img208.imageshack.us
 
2006-09-05 12:01:19 AM
Heh. Before you overwhelm yourselves with smug, you might want to read the Department of Labor page that that Snopes article links to. Everything Dinjiin says is correct. To be counted as "unemployed" you have to not be working and actively sought work in the prior 4 weeks. That excludes everyone of those on Dinjiin's list as being counted as "unemployed."
 
2006-09-05 12:15:02 AM
elchip Snopes disagrees. Apparently.

From what I have gathered, the Department of Labor defines the unemployed as "people who were not employed during the reference week and were available for work (excepting temporary illness) and had made specific efforts to find employment during the 4-week period ending with the reference week."

Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has six methods for computing unemployment:

* U1 - Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

* U2 - Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

* U3 - Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

* U4 - Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

* U5 - Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers

* U6 - Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers

The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines "civilian labor force" as: the sum of the employed and unemployed after excluding those under 16 years of age, institutionalized persons (e.g., prison inmates or psychiatric hospital patients), and persons on active duty in the armed forces.

Here are a few graphs showing the unemployment rates based on each type, as well as showing those no longer in the labor force:

i4.photobucket.com

i4.photobucket.com
 
2006-09-05 12:25:56 AM
...so the Snopes.com article is correct only when the Bureau of Labor Statistics U3 method is quoted.

The Department of Labor uses the method that is supposedly an urban legend. It may not be official, but politicians eager to distort numbers often quote it regardless.
 
2006-09-05 01:23:32 AM
"Its not like neolibbies "
www.ocado.com

"Cause if it says Libbys Libbys Libbys on the label label label, you will like it like it like on the table table table."
 
2006-09-05 01:26:50 AM
You can show me all the graphics you want, and discuss econmic analysis for the length of a fooseball tournament, but if people feel that their dollar is being stretched for less and less, they will think the economy is doing badly. (Especially when your society leads you to believe you can only be prosperous when you buy expensive consumerable goods.)

\Hey my life is in the shiatter economically, so do not tell me unemployment is down. (No debt, just hard trying to find a good job.)
\\Just saying...
 
2006-09-05 01:34:35 AM
Is this going to be another thread where Eraser8 posts his whacky self-contrived economic laws?
 
2006-09-05 01:41:57 AM
Philbb:

wydok: Where's the economic problem?

How about things like, "median family income, which grew 11.3 percent in the late 1900s, fell nearly 3 percent in the 2000s" From here.(pops)

OMFG! Welcome to the real world and the global economy. What, are you expecting the president to send you a paycheck or tell your employer(s) how to compete in the modern world?

It's funny/sad/amazing how many people expect a president to be able to turn back time. Get real people.

lol.

/Farking hates Bush.
//That doesn't mean it's an effective strategy to ignore the realities of the modern world.
///Good grief.
 
2006-09-05 02:02:20 AM
Well for me personally, I know Bush has little to do with the economy (although his policies do have effects, such as his run-up of the deficit). What bothers me more is when he pisses on my head and tells me its raining.
 
2006-09-05 04:05:29 AM
Abagadro: Bush has little to do with the economy

I wish he was trying to stay out of politics either.
 
2006-09-05 04:07:29 AM
Hey guys, Bush contradicts himself frequently! There are also allegations that he went AWOL and used cocaine!

I am funny now, yes?
 
2006-09-05 06:47:39 AM
kmmontandon: uatuba: Hmm, low unemployment, wages that haven't risen but haven't dropped either

Median Wages Over The Past Six Years:

(courtesy Detroit Free Press)



You mean wages fell down from the artificial highs of the year 2000? Ya don't say! I know liberals like facts that arent supported by circumstance, but come on...
 
2006-09-05 07:21:22 AM
Currently those excluded from the "unemployment rate" include:
* Inactively seeking work


WTF? Either you are looking for work or you are not!

* Full-time education

How are you going to work at a job if you spend all day in school?

* Self-employed

Are you saying if you are self employed, that means you are unemployed??

* Early retirement

Something I am working for!!!

* Disability or long-term ill health

Yup. These people are looking for a job!

* Overqualified workers in sub-skilled labor (ie, lawyer working as a checkout clerk)
* Underemployed due to a lack of work hours (aka, part time worker)


I agree this should be acounted for.

* Removed from society due to criminal incarceration

How are you going to put a con to work in your office?

* Removed from society due to military service (includes National Guard and Reserves)

They have a job and are being paid (Although I think we need to take a look at the pay scale!)
 
2006-09-05 07:38:09 AM
Combine this good news with the skyrocketing revenues and ever decreasing deficits and anyone can see that Murka is entering a golden age of prosperity for all.

Hail Glorious Leader, and praise his fiscal wisdom.
 
2006-09-05 07:53:08 AM
When the job market is as crappy as it has been for the last several years, I suggest all who are capable to just go back to school, whether its fulltime, or part-time, GED or MBA. Just go back to school. And then your problems are solved. And if you have a wife or family to provide for, have your wife pick up your temporary 'slack' and if she can't do that, then I guess you're shiat out of luck.
 
2006-09-05 07:54:11 AM
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's amazing how the President can take a 8.5 trillion dollar shiat on the economy and still do nothing for Average Americans. Get it straight people, he caters to his base; that's it.
 
2006-09-05 09:15:44 AM
Please take at least ONE college level macroecon class before offering expert commentary on the state of the U.S. economy.

/That is all.
 
2006-09-05 09:35:25 AM
tandkquinn: Please take at least ONE college level macroecon class before offering expert commentary on the state of the U.S. economy.

/That is all.



Agreed, I learned so much in mine. Before I went in, I had no idea you could calculate entire Economies using basic prealgebra equations.

///My teacher was cool as hell.
//College is a scam.
 
2006-09-05 11:21:46 AM
I base all I need to know about the economy by looking at the price of quality beer, which has gone up about 2 dollars a sixpack under Dumbya.
 
2006-09-05 01:02:29 PM
WTF? did I kill the thread or what?
 
2006-09-05 01:48:32 PM
Three Polls Find Workers Sensing Deep Pessimism

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/us/31labor.html

*******************************************************

Yeah thats some great economy
 
2006-09-05 01:51:18 PM
The Bush economy - Wages fall 6% for young workers

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/us/04labor.html

**************************************************

clip- Census Bureau data released last week underlined the difficulties for young workers, showing that median income for families with at least one parent age 25 to 34 fell $3,009 from 2000 to 2005, sliding to $48,405, a 5.9 percent drop, after having jumped 12 percent in the late 1990's.
 
2006-09-05 02:01:21 PM
Rethinking the 'Strong Jobs Recovery' Scenario

http://www.thestreet.com/_tscana/markets/economics/10258387.html

clip - As opposed to cherry-picking the most favorable-looking time periods, job creation historically has been measured from the end of the recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research puts at March 2001. Another commonly used period is from the start of the president's term (Jan. 20, 2001).

When we plug those time frames into the BLS data, we derive a significantly less rosy picture: From the beginning of the recession to last month, about 1.8 million jobs were created. Measured from the end of the recession, we see 3.4 million new jobs. None of these measures take into account the 2.6 million jobs lost from 2001 to 2003.

Over the course of four years, those numbers fail to keep up with population growth.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report