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.

(AP)   U.S. jobless claims fall to nearly 3-year low   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 206
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

1947 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2003 at 6:34 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-12-31 11:24:52 PM
I meant "discretion", of course. But eye disgress.

*throws another round*
 
2003-12-31 11:26:07 PM
Did I see someone blaming Bush for IT jobs being moved to other countries? Hell, Clinton himself sold out to China. Maybe you missed that part of history. Bush can't be blamed for every individual American's actions, you farking asshat.
 
2003-12-31 11:31:24 PM
[20:27:46][kaha@wombat]
[~] dict disgress
No definitions found for "disgress", perhaps you mean:
web1913: Digress Distress
wn: digress distress
jargon: dispress
devils: DISTRESS

gawdammit.

*trudges through the snow to the store with his Radio Flyer wagon to buy more beer*
 
Zed
2003-12-31 11:44:46 PM
Isn't the unemployment rate just based upon how many people are collecting unemployment benefits? A ton of peoples benefits just expired, that doesn't mean they all got jobs.

There are also a ton of people who have just given up looking for the time being.
 
2003-12-31 11:48:39 PM
44andConservative If you are working a McJob you likely are not working full time and cannot make enough money to pay rent or the mortgage on a house. You also are not elligible for health coverage, from the company or the government... so keep your fingers crossed that you do not happen to get sick. And your schedule is likely going to be so random that there is no possible way to go to school and improve your lot in life.

So... since being on welfare gives you health care, enough money to live on, and the time to and opportunity to get educated. It may be preferable to not have a job so that you can actually go somewhere. Now I have no mercy for the people who get on welfare and stay there for ever without trying to pick themselves up... but without welfare there would be no way for a person to recover from a financial catastrophy.
 
2003-12-31 11:50:13 PM
I blame Bush...


and the Jews

and that guy over there!
 
2003-12-31 11:50:44 PM
PootieTang:
"Did I see someone blaming Bush for IT jobs being moved to other countries?"

I hope you won't be flagged as some flaming reactionist republican dumbass if I'm mistaken, but I get the feeling you are referring to my post. Again, I don't blame any particular party, just corporate greed.

/call ME an asshat...Flamewar commence
 
2003-12-31 11:50:52 PM
A quick point of clarification on yet another Neo Con media-spin straw man:

The Clinton Boom began inubian.

The internet boom officially took hold in 1999.

Please do your math. And stop claiming the six consecutive years of growth, the least of which created more jobs than Bush in any of his four years, was due to a "bubble".

It's a reductionist false argument that takes a sliver of the Clinton years and tries to tar the entire boom merely for partisan spin.

Clinton raised taxes and decreased federal spending in 1993 and the increased revenue eventually led to the balanced budget in 2000. By increasing student loans inubian, Clinton helped millions pay for college, producing the most educated generation in history. In 1995 Clinton overhauled the Reagan/Bush welfare system, creating a workfare program that sent millions more back into the job force.

Economically Clinton was a legitimate national hero. He had this country on the right track, web boom or no web boom.

And then came Bush.

Massive tax cuts + two wars. At 450 billion dollars a year in deficit spending, this slight reversal of the unemployment percentage is all he has accomplished in four years.

He's a joke, people. It is the economy, stupid. And Dean will wipe the floor with him next year.
 
2004-01-01 12:02:57 AM
This article is a joke. They only count NEW claims for unemployment. They don't count the millions who:

1) Have used up their benefits and have given up their search for now cos they can't find anything

2) Have accepted temp work or part-time work, which pays less, does not include insurance benefits, etc. while they continue to look for fulltime work

3) Have used up their benefits and are still searching for work
 
2004-01-01 12:07:44 AM
2003-12-31 11:50:44 PM
Dudly

2003-12-31 10:35:10 PM
Dudly



As a member of the "bleeding heart whiner" class (and proud of it), I'd like to state that I don't blame Bush for my 1 year unemployement - as gratifying as that may be. Yeah, I can't stand the guy, but he's not to blame - shake a pointy stick at yes. But not total blame. And yes, there are definite economic cycles that have a habit of waking us all up now and then, butt...

I blame the greed of the Enron-like CEO's in our country. The short sitedness of their idea of profit as apposed to real investment for the good of the infrastructure of their own company.

Yes, supply and demand rules and I've tried very hard to create marketable skills for myself no matter what the economy. And I will always find a way to put a roof over my head no matter what the job is. But the desire for a quick buck these days is just turning our country into a land of 'have' and 'havenots' at an alarming rate.

I can survive because I don't have a family to support and can move all over the country for whatever work possible. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like for some middle class family rooted in their community to find that their job just got outsourced to India...


//

You have no idea of how the real world works. Outsourcing jobs is not only a good idea, but it is the only option that makes sense in this current world of ours. Spreading jobs on a worldwide level boosts the global economy and creates a better atmosphere here at home, as well.

The "Indian" people get better jobs, the buisinesses make more money and are able to lower retail prices, the U.S. citizens and consumers are able to buy more because of the lowered prices, and the U.S. government and country have an expanded sphere of influence around the world. This is the first step in heralding in a new golden age of prosperity.
 
2004-01-01 12:13:54 AM
Want fries with that?

Yeah, yeah, the rate at which new claims are being filed has dropped but we're still 2.5 million jobs in the hole and many of those were high paying.
 
2004-01-01 12:24:58 AM
The "Indian" people get better jobs, the buisinesses make more money and are able to lower retail prices, the U.S. citizens and consumers are able to buy more because of the lowered prices

Even though "U.S. citizens and consumers" have no jobs because of outsourcing and, therefore, no money to buy anything.

All.Righty.Then.
 
2004-01-01 12:27:34 AM
kurtb

The economy was headed for the crapper before Bush took office. Things in the world of macroeconomics don't happen with the flip of a switch, it takes a while for all types of policy, production and trade factors to trickle down to what is usually a recession or an expansion. Thats why the Fed doesnt classify any period as anything until there are three consecutive quarters of "it".

It is a matter of convenience that the Bush haters (and I am not a Bush lover, just an economist) are able to shake their fingers at the administration. It is yet another part of the blame arsenal (right in there with Iraq policy) that lets those who "know" they were right all along to vote against Bush, feel better about him winning.

Economically speaking - the crappy economy would have happened no matter who was elected.


And yet, even though they credit Bush with all kinds of stuff that never happens, if you quiz anyone about it, they deny being a fawning Bush II lover. I wonder why that is.

This latest jump is probably a result of the one-shot tax refund speed-up and won't last. Tax refunds this coming year are going to be a lot less for a lot of people, because they already got a large chunk of it.

Wait and see how it plays out. I hope it keeps going well. I've had a good year in the market, which is saying something in ANY Bush administration.
 
2004-01-01 12:31:12 AM
Dragon of Avarice

You have no idea of how the real world works. Outsourcing jobs is not only a good idea, but it is the only option that makes sense in this current world of ours. Spreading jobs on a worldwide level boosts the global economy and creates a better atmosphere here at home, as well.

The "Indian" people get better jobs, the buisinesses make more money and are able to lower retail prices, the U.S. citizens and consumers are able to buy more because of the lowered prices, and the U.S. government and country have an expanded sphere of influence around the world. This is the first step in heralding in a new golden age of prosperity.


It's easier just to summarize by saying: Cheap Labor Conservatives. :D

You would be right if the trade deficit actually went down once in a while and if the budget deficit wasn't growing at the fastest rate ever.
 
2004-01-01 12:35:43 AM
Dudly,

If people really wanted to land a blow to companies shipping workers overseas, they'd stop purchasing goods and services from those companies, instead of just blaming Bush for everything as most democrats have done for the past few years. That's not a "reactionary republican" idea, that's common sense - it's also how our country works. Oh wait, I forgot... you're a democrat. You're waiting for your socialist hand-out. Nevermind. Just keep biatching, that'll fix all the world's problems.
 
2004-01-01 12:40:28 AM
44andConservative

"Working at McD's is not the same as making a real living"

This is unfortunately the popular opinion. I contend that Micky D's or any other minimum wage job is far better than sitting at home collecting welfare or unimployment. Anybody who is capable of working and collects welfare should honestly feel like a worthless, trailer trash, scumbag piece os shait!

Put me in office, I'll put an end to that shait so fast the libs won't know what hit em!!!!


First, let's be clear. A lot of the people in the US who are on welfare or unemployment are white rednecks, and they are generally the type of people who believe in Mom, apple pie, the flag, John Ashcroft, guns and hating just about anybody who isn't exactly like them. So you'd be screwing a lot of your own constituency if you "end that shiat so fast".

Second, what is this great program that YOU have and nobody else has tried? Who is going to hire them? Are you going to start a *gasp* government program to give them work? That smacks of socialism. Let's have your program.
 
2004-01-01 12:45:29 AM
Dragon of Avorice:
Well, maybe you have a point. I'm not an economist. I'm all for people in other countries 'bettering their lot' and truly believe that American businesses need to find a way to remain competitive. I don't want to turn this in to an IT discussion either. But think about it...

We all want to be employed here in America. And we are all trying improve our knowlege base via college educated kids. But what hope do we have when we keep shipping all of these jobs elswhere? The next generation has nothing to look forward to when they graduate. So future generations may be wondering "why bother?" They're spending thousands and ending up at McJob. That is unless they are lucky enough to get a cozy DOD contract...

This equals Brain Drain to me and it's just wrong.

On one hand, I think Americans expect too much when they expect - Safe job, 401k...because an education does not guarentee a life of luxary. And on the other hand, I don't think Corporate America values it's resources enough to invest in them. It's not a partison opinion of mine. It's just my own personal corporate disgust.
 
2004-01-01 12:47:42 AM
Probably because Congress didn't extend the jobless benefits for millions of Americans just before Christmas, or something like that.
 
2004-01-01 12:48:38 AM
PootieTang
If people really wanted to land a blow to companies shipping workers overseas, they'd stop purchasing goods and services from those companies, instead of just blaming Bush for everything as most democrats have done for the past few years. That's not a "reactionary republican" idea, that's common sense - it's also how our country works. Oh wait, I forgot... you're a democrat. You're waiting for your socialist hand-out. Nevermind. Just keep biatching, that'll fix all the world's problems.


You had better watch it there, because you are siding with the unions. They are only ones calling for all of us to "Buy American".

What you failed to note, though, is that most of the people who are moving the jobs overseas are big GOP supporters. And they aren't doing it because they need to, they are doing it to increase their own stock options' value.

If you can pay 10 people the same amount you pay one, even if each of those 10 people are only 20 percent as efficient as the one US worker, you still save money and that money goes right into the value of the stock and the CEO's paycheck.

Of course, the problem comes when you don't have anyone to sell your product to, but by that time the CEO has moved on to another industry anyway. Remember Chainsaw Al Dunlap?
 
2004-01-01 12:55:01 AM
Yet on the front page of Sunday's Detroit News and Free Press, poverty in Michigan is up 25% from last year. Times are good!
 
2004-01-01 01:01:28 AM
Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law stealthily

On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shutting down the federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.


Well, that's just farking wonderful. We're getting Nixon and his "check this guy out and put the IRS on him" policy back again under the Bush II administration.

But, NOOOOOO, the NeoCons say, the Patriot Act won't affect you at all. What freedoms are being taken away? Privacy, maybe? :P
 
2004-01-01 01:06:46 AM
Good Post, Raiders of the Fark.

Clinton did increase some taxes, but most of his increases in revenue came from raised fees. (nitpick)

BTW, what is the word that the filter is changing to "inubian"?
 
2004-01-01 01:11:05 AM
ZipBeep,

Your points match hand in hand with mine - they may be GOPs, but they're thinking with their wallets. So why not hit them where it hurts? Stop buying their products. They'll go where the money is.
 
2004-01-01 01:14:09 AM
"You have no idea of how the real world works."

Coming from the Dragon of Avarice, that is absolutely priceless.

C'mon down, son. 44 years old, worked several trades in many states and a couple different countries, and am curious about what you consider the "real world" to be.
 
2004-01-01 01:15:56 AM
ZipBeep

Sing it, baby.
 
2004-01-01 01:29:10 AM
"If people really wanted to land a blow to companies shipping workers overseas, they'd stop purchasing goods and services from those companies, instead of just blaming Bush for everything as most democrats have done for the past few years."

When will you get over the fact that jobs in America should not be a partisan issue? Are you that obligated to your party that you ignore what is happening in this country? Republicans suck, Democrats suck, we all suck! But vote goddammit! I'm not looking for any handouts, just wishing people would take a stand now and then.

/closed minded retoric with absolutely no thought involved making me vomit...
 
SGF
2004-01-01 01:32:16 AM
I wouldn't trust any stat from this administration.

The folks who tell you McWork and blue aprons equates to record employment, are the same folks who told that a mighty coalition (including the mighty nation of Tonga) was mustering to smite the evil-doers with their nucular weapons.
 
2004-01-01 01:48:48 AM
//BTW, what is the word that the filter is changing to "inubian"?//

Strangely, I typed "inubian", which was the first year of the Clinton boom (compared to 1999, when the internet bubble took hold).

Not sure if someone who runs Fark is having fun, but whatever.

Happy New Year to all!!!

Here's hoping in 2004 we kill as many Al Qaeda as possible, get out of the Iraq waste of time as quickly as possible, and elect a real President.
 
2004-01-01 02:10:19 AM
WTF??!?!

I typed in..... 1995....
 
2004-01-01 03:06:29 AM
That's so particularly cool about the current job statisitics engine and the department of labor. If you haven't found a job within aprox. 18 months, you stop receiving benefits and you exit the system because you "aren't looking for a job". So, if things are *still* screwed up after 24 months, it looks like we've gone into recovery.

> Whether or not your unemployment benefits have run out
> have no bearing on your employment/unemployment status.

Not true... I remember Bush himself on the boob tube saying that sometimes people just "choose to exit the job market for a period of time" and that when they did, they were dropped from the ranks of the "unemployed". I just so happens that receiving all your unemployment benifits wihtout finding a job is the indicator that the government uses to determine if you've decided to exit the job market for a period of time (how long? I don't know, maybe an administration or two...).

> Economically Clinton was a legitimate national hero. He]
> had this country on the right track, web boom or no web
> boom.

Clinton was in the right place at the right time, nothing more and nothing less. Of course, if he had the foresight to manage the unprecidented growth we experienced during those 8 years, we might not be in so much pain right now. ...and I think most mature adults would be willing to admit that the growth we experienced was *not* due to supply side economics of the Regan/Bush era. The entire discussion of "who was responsible for the economic success experienced between 1990 and 2000 is a fscking moot, bullshiat point.

> 1. The White House doesn't release unemployement
> statistics.
> 2. The current unemployment rate reported by the
> Department of Labor is 5.9%.
> 3. The 5.9% rate includes anyone who is unemployed,
> including those who are "long-term unemployed."

1. yes the the White House doesn't press release the statistics, unless there's some positive way to spin them. Yes, the Department of Labor is responsible for generating the stats.; so, they release two numbers one good and one bad. guess which done get the White House press release? That's how government agencies survive regieme changes. Duh..

2. The the "good news number".

3. Yeah, thing is... to be included in the long term unemployed number, you have to keep filing paperwork by standing in those super huge unemployment lines. Realisticly, how many people are going to stand in those lines if they're not going to get an unemployment insurance compenstation check because of it? Fscking nobody... so, guess what that long term unemployment number actually represents... that's right, fantasy land. Now if the Labor Department actually gave a flying fsck, the would cross check long-term enemployment against pay roll social security benefit deductions. But that's not going to happen for a number of reasons, including interagency cooprations and an express mandate to produce non-rosy numbers that the current regiem... uh, I mean administration can use to calm the masses.



> What about previously working mothers who have just taken
> themselves out of the market to be housewives?

Funny you should mention this... in Japan, where women's
rights are probably a full decade or two behind the rest of
the civilized world, the unemployment rate for women is a
full percentage point (sometimes even two or three points) lower than that of their male counterparts. Why? They represent the McJob, Cheap, easily abused labor pool. That's why most women there *choose* to exit the labor pool as soon as they marry. This would be roughly equivalent to the undocumented illegal alien labor pool in the USA, except they don't get pregnat/married and leave the labor pool.


> I wouldn't trust any stat from this administration.

I don't trust any statistics published by *any* administration.

> If people really wanted to land a blow to companies
> shipping work overseas, they'd stop purchasing goods
> and services from those companies,

Uh, nothing is completely made in American any longer. Go ahead, look on the back of everything in your house and tell me where it was made. Once you have your list of "Made in America" things, call the companies and ask them who their parts suppliers are. Call those folks and ask them where they get the materials for their parts. So, go ahdead, try to "Buy American" and drop your standard of living in half. You know, a country of almost 2 billion people (most of them rice farmers) does not experience +10% growth for over a decade without a little help from You and Me (some of the most over paid people in the world).
 
2004-01-01 03:09:39 AM
I'm glad that there are at least some intelligent people out there. Just because unemployment claims are down does not mean that jobs are being created. Unemployment is VERY high at the moment an has no indication of changing anytime soon. I agree that the prez cannot single-handedly control the enconomy, but for them to point at these stats and say that it is going down is irresponsible.
 
2004-01-01 04:16:57 AM
Look at all the funny straw men from the Right camp.
 
2004-01-01 04:48:00 AM
farking-groker
That's so particularly cool about the current job statisitics engine and the department of labor. If you haven't found a job within aprox. 18 months, you stop receiving benefits and you exit the system because you "aren't looking for a job". So, if things are *still* screwed up after 24 months, it looks like we've gone into recovery.


No, no, no! 1000 times no. Where are you getting this from? It is false. Seriously, I have to know?!?! Who is the one out there spewing this information that has somehow infected the minds of so many people out there?

Yeah, thing is... to be included in the long term unemployed number, you have to keep filing paperwork by standing in those super huge unemployment lines.

1000 more times no! Hell, I even posted a link in this thread. Once again, even though I'm sure nobody will pay attention:

The unemployment rate is NOT, I repeat, NOT calculated from the number of people receiving unemployment benefits. Thus, it does not matter, I repeat, IT DOES NOT MATTER if your unemployment benefits ran out, you are still counted as UNEMPLOYED.

If anyone needs me, I'll be banging my head against the wall.
 
m00
2004-01-01 07:01:27 AM
DrToast:

"WASHINGTON - The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits last week dropped to the lowest level in nearly three years"

Thats the point of the article right there.

I think what farking-groker (who had the same thought as me): what about all the jobless who AREN'T filing claims? Because they've given up and just move back home with Mom and Dad at 28.

It's just an incomplete picture that is rather misleading.
 
2004-01-01 07:16:15 AM
Ths is bullshiat. Yes,less people are claming unenploymeny,but only besause their benifits have run out. It's not that their have found jobs.
 
2004-01-01 10:04:19 AM
The National Average may be the lowest but where I live quite a few of the major companies; Gateway, Snap-On have been laying people off left and right, or just closing the doors. Even Target has employees that are "full-time" that are only working 20-25 hours a week. Before anyone jumps me about facts, all I know is what I hear from friends and people I meet. So maybe I just know some exceptionally unlucky people but all I know is that I feel for them and help two to three people a month polish up the resumes.
 
2004-01-01 10:17:12 AM
I love you neo-cons and your phantom recovery. Remember folks that this figure dosn't count people whos claims expired and can't file....
 
2004-01-01 10:39:13 AM
"Ths is bullshiat. Yes,less people are claming unenploymeny,but only besause their benifits have run out. It's not that their have found jobs."

Whiney.
Abrasive.
Illiterate.
Knows all about unemployment.
Claims to speak for all .
Oh, and hates Bush.

It's not just a lifestyle, it's a pattern.
 
2004-01-01 10:39:21 AM
I am a programmer, my city and state have had particularly large job losses in the tech sector. You would think my job prospects would be grim. I did, but decided 4 weeks ago to give it a try because things at my current employer have been pretty grim for a long while.

Three out of the last four weekends I've sent out 3-10 resumes. I have been swamped with the responses - sneaking out of work for an interview almost every day for the last two weeks.

I'm telling myself not to even look at the job listings this weekend. I really don't have time for anything more.

Just one anecdote, and my capabilities and interviewing skills are frankly well above average, but I for one have lost quite a lot of sympathy for those who say they can't find work.
 
2004-01-01 11:41:20 AM
hoopyfrood
I love you neo-cons and your phantom recovery. Remember
folks that this figure dosn't count people whos claims expired and can't file....


Funny, you're sounding like a Republican inubian.

AbbyNormal
Ths is bullshiat. Yes,less people are claming unenploymeny,but only besause their benifits have run out. It's not that their have found jobs

What part of new unemployment claims do you not understand?
 
2004-01-01 11:44:36 AM
I meant to say inubian there. Not sure why the filter got me?
 
2004-01-01 11:54:59 AM
1994. The year.
 
2004-01-01 12:04:22 PM
Dudly

You said to me:

When will you get over the fact that jobs in America should not be a partisan issue? Are you that obligated to your party that you ignore what is happening in this country?

/closed minded retoric with absolutely no thought involved making me vomit...


Interesting how you claim I've brought bipartisanship into this when you originally called me a "flaming reactionist republican dumbass." It looks like you brought it into the conversation. Your closed minded retoric with absolutely not thought involved makes me vomit.
 
2004-01-01 12:05:33 PM
er, not bipartisanship, partisanship. doh.
 
2004-01-01 12:09:26 PM
2004-01-01 07:01:27 AM m00
Thats the point of the article right there.


No, that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is probably best summed up in these three paragraphs:

Claims have been below 400,000 for 13 consecutive weeks, something economists view as a sign that the fragile labor market may be turning a corner.

The latest snapshot of the labor market suggested that America's businesses are feeling more confident that the economic recovery is genuine, and thus are less inclined to hand out pink slips to workers, economists said.

"It is encouraging that this final piece of the puzzle the labor market may be falling into place. It's a great economic note to end the year on," said Richard Yamarone, economist with Argus Research Corp.


It's kind of funny, though, watching people act as if the four week moving average of initial unemployment claims is some wacky new statistic designed to make this economy look good.
 
2004-01-01 12:18:25 PM
> Yes,less people are claming unenploymeny,but only
> besause their benifits have run out. It's not that their
> have found jobs.

Well, if that isn't "Knows all" and "speak for all", I don't know what is. Fact of the matter is probably some where in between the two extremes. Given human nature and knowing the predisposition with which people interface with government bureaucracy (esp. the formally gainfully employed for a long period of time), I think it's pretty safe to say that most people opt-out of the paper chase after the benefits run out... we all know how effective government employment agencies are. Talk with any rational economist (is there such a thing?) and they'll tell you unemployment figures are primarily a political instrument and that's why people making stock picks based based exclusively upon unemployment number press releases usually get burned beyond anything past a 1 week period. Remember, hang on to your stocks; be a player in the long game (sucker).

BTW, it is probably in people's best interst to exit Labor Department databases as quickly as possible (after maxing your insurance)... If you don't think that data gets back to creditors, The Bank, phone/utility companies, you're way wrong... and guess who gets put on the short list when they can't make a payment, Joe pay-check-to-pay-check-whos-been-on-and-off-the-late-list-for-the-last-10-year s or Ms. I-just-lost-my-job-because-it-got-outsourced-to-India-and-I'll-never-see-that- job-again-or-make-anywhere-near-the-same-amount-of-money? ...yeah, databases are funny like that.
 
2004-01-01 01:05:55 PM
>Claims have been below 400,000 for 13 consecutive weeks,
>something economists view as a sign that the fragile labor
>market may be turning a corner.

Considering that we've been in free-fall for well over13 consecutive weeks, all this really means is that the rate of acceleration has bottomed out and we've hit terminal velocity... The number of people exiting is finally equaling the number of people entering the unemployment statistics system. To find out what that actually means, you'd need to go back way past 13 weeks and look at the peak rate of job loss (and that my friend is a scary number).

>The latest snapshot of the labor market suggested that
>America's businesses are feeling more confident that the
>economic recovery is genuine, and thus are less inclined
>to hand out pink slips to workers, economists said.

To find out what american business thinks, look at "for rent" signs on mainstree, "business for sale" ads in the local classifides and the rate of foreclosure, reposession and bankruptcy filings at the local court house.

Beyond that, the notion that pink slips aren't in fashion any longer is asinine. This is the number one method by which CEOs improve the bottom line in corporate america. There is no capital expenditure more expensive than an unneeded employee.

> "It is encouraging that this final piece of the puzzle
> the labor market may be falling into place. It's a great
> economic note to end the year on," said Richard Yamarone, >economist with Argus Research Corp.

...and who does Argus work for?

"Do your due dilligence before you believe anything you read/see on the web." - me

Fark photoshop constests should be enough proof you need to understand that staement.

Speaking of George W. Bush and Argus, the following can be found on rnc.org (actually they pulled it, but it's still in google's cache, thank god):

"[Bush is responsible for] torrid third quarter growth rate
said Richard Yamarone, head of economic research for Argus Research."

uh oh, I think we may have a hidden agenda in the staffing of economists at Argus. What the fsck kind of economist, attemting to maintain any attempt at impartiality, allows themselves to be quoted by the Republic National Committee, let alone the friken "Head of Economic 'Reserach'". "torrid third quarter growth", dude, I want some of the crack he's smoking.


Here's some other takes on the numbers:

"Businesses have not yet regained enough confidence or motivation to slow layoffs and resume hiring," said Maury Harris, chief economist at UBS Warburg. "

"The manufacturing sector remains a basket case, and it will be interesting to see how long it takes before we see a turnaround here," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

"[...] seasonally adjusted [...] claims [...] still the second-highest this year, the Labor Department reported Thursday."

"In the layoffs [...] went up last week [...] That marked the highest level in just over a year."

Oh, and now for the killer quote:

"[...] the nation's unemployment rate probably would creep up because job growth wouldn't be strong enough to accommodate all the additional job seekers who would enter the [job] market [...]"

ie. people who are currently not "accounted for" by Labor Department stats. would re-enter the job market....

zing...

it's soooo nice to be right.

All out of the same article that mentions your precious "good news" stats:

http://groups.msn.com/planetnews/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Me ssage=4081
 
2004-01-01 01:32:48 PM
Whops... my bad. The article was actually from:

WASHINGTON (May 1, 2003 5:17 p.m. EDT)

Here's the right URL:

http://groups.msn.com/planetnews/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Me ssage=4081

Still, the nubers are within about 10% and the statments by Argus are similar enough to warrent concern beyond the standard tea-leaf-reading disclamer that come attached to all economists (no matter who they work for or what their political convictions).

...jesus, I gota' stop posting after my 4th Sam Adams (lightweight; I know)... fun none the less.

have a good new year everyone... and I hope everyone finds what they need, despite the bad news and propaganda.
 
2004-01-01 01:52:15 PM
Dragon of Avarice

Jealous? It's likely that they would be able to afford these vehicles anyway, so don't try to pass it off as a peril if the tax cuts. There are many other reasons to negatively criticize them, so you don't have to fall back upon such a thing.

The "vehicle tax cut" law was enacted primarily for farmers. Farmers need big machinery to work, but most cannot afford it. So, the gov't stepped in and allowed them to get a tax break on a certain percentage of the vehicle for a number of years. The vehicle has to be over 8000 pounds, and used for business.

Enter the SUV Idiocy Era. Big hulking vehicles, many of which are over 8000 pounds. Light bulbs go on in dealers' heads. Push these to professionals that either own a business or can write off a car for business use, and want to drive the latest trendy vehicle.

So, the result is seeing a bunch of tools driving H2's and Land Cruisers all over town with a small "ReMax Realty" or "Sarah's Holistic Medicine" sticker on the fender. I saw it all the time in Scottsdale.

Could these people afford these vehicles if not for the tax cut? Probably not. Do these people need these vehicles for their businesses? Most definitely not. So now you have an increase in gas-guzzling, exhaust-belching, elitist, unnecessarily behemoth machines on the road that will crush any normal-sized car in an accident. And that's tax money that could have been put to much, much better use.

Jealous? No. Pissed off that people are just out to get theirs at the expense of everyone else around them? Yes. Bitter that the Bush Administration is fully aware of this abuse and STILL increased the tax cut on the vehicles, encouraging this abuse? You bet your ass.

DoA, do some research before opening your trap next time.
 
2004-01-01 03:08:10 PM
I just don't buy it. I am hiring at my facility and the only thing keeping the five people I need to hire from earning $250 a day is the fact that it means they actually have to WORK!!!

I had my most recent hire walk out during the orientation because nobody told him he had to - horror of horrors - try and keep to a schedule and show up on time every morning. Poor reason to turn down a $17 an hour job.

Call me Scrooge but I have no sympathy anymore.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report