More jobless recovery
 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:54:34 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:

One figure (as of 1973) that stuck in my mind to this day is this: of all
thirty-year military retirees, only 3% live to age 60. That's a cost of
serving, too.

Damn, were any reasons given for the rate?

More jobless recovery
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

``The payrolls number was well below market expectations and confirms
the jobs market in the U.S. is weak,'' said Daniel Tenengauzer, vice
president for foreign exchange at Lehman Brothers

What a bunch of bull****. I did some reading on Tenengauzer. He's 35 years
old (almost the same age as me)...and Harry has already stated that that's
too young to have a meaningful opinon. Nevertheless, what I found out
about Tenengauzer is that he has a hard time separating his political bias
from his supposedly objective economic analysis.

Tenengauzer, who used to work for Goldman Sachs, was blasted by the Israeli
Ha'aretz back in May 2001 for this very thing. Another Israeli news outlet
had this to say:

"Israelis now know how to read Goldman Sachs' ratings: When Goldman Sachs
rates Israel high, it means Israel is under attack and/or *led by the left*.
When Goldman Sachs drops Israel's ratings or issues ex cathedra military
commentary by young economists (ie--Tenengauzer), it means Israel is
defending herself, or *led by the right*. "

Sound familiar?

Only a very biased (or stupid) individual can come to the conclusion that a
single-month net gain of 112,000 jobs is confirmation that the "jobs market
in the U.S. is weak". Putz.

More jobless recovery
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
February 6, 2004
Fewer Jobs Than Expected Created in January, Report Says
By REUTERS

Filed at 9:10 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy

The more accurate Household Survey, which is used to determine
unemployment
figures and also includes data on the self-employed in its new jobs
report,
shows just under 500,000 new jobs.

Yes, agreed. There's a lot of people who are "self-employed" now since
they haven't been able to find a job working for someone else.

It likely means they're using the equity in the retirement account,
house or BOAT to finance a way to produce some household income.


Equity loans are not considered income in the household survey.

More jobless recovery
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.e4981df578ad06f2310437d4a8199e38@107 6095647.nulluser.com...
jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
February 6, 2004
Fewer Jobs Than Expected Created in January, Report Says
By REUTERS

Filed at 9:10 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy

The more accurate Household Survey, which is used to determine
unemployment
figures and also includes data on the self-employed in its new jobs
report,
shows just under 500,000 new jobs.

Yes, agreed. There's a lot of people who are "self-employed" now since
they haven't been able to find a job working for someone else.

It likely means they're using the equity in the retirement account,
house or BOAT to finance a way to produce some household income.

jps


You've hit that nail on the head.

Only if that nail was on top of Harry's head. Equity loans don't count
towards income in the household survey.

More jobless recovery
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


How delightful...put up a post showing yet another area in

Your post was a story out of Reuters written by a biased reporter who quoted
biased "experts" (Tenengauzer )... "experts" who have been shown to
compromise their ethics and responsibility as "objective" analysts whenever
it's in the best interest of their particular political agenda.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/nbn/nbn344.htm

More jobless recovery
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:33:09 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:51:49 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:

You (and I) will have to plan on adding Sept and Oct to the "handout
list" if the dems get us socialized the way they'd like.

You mean "the dems" that recently ran up the biggest deficit in the
shortest time
of any period in history?

DSK

If the dems try to give everything they're promising now, we've seen
nothing yet!

Let's see, free health care for all, free college for all, free drugs
for all, subsidized or free housing for all -- hell, we won't have to
work for anything, it'll all be free!


Isn't that why you joined the military? Free health care, free college,
free prescriptions, subsidized housing...such a deal...was it good for
you?

Free? I'm sorry, but our veterans*earn* those benefits. They're not
"free". "Free" is sucking on the tit of dues-paying union members.

More jobless recovery
 

"thunder" wrote in message

One figure (as of 1973) that stuck in my mind to this day is this: of
all
thirty-year military retirees, only 3% live to age 60. That's a cost of
serving, too.

Damn, were any reasons given for the rate?

No specific conclusions at the time, and I don't know if data supported a
later conclusion, or if the circumstances have changed. JohnH may have
access to some current info.

Speculation at the time centered around a combination of stress and aging,
and possible long term effects of earlier toxic exposures. Although the
subjects in question were not considered aged, they were what you'd call
"firmly middle aged" bg Typical 30-year retiree was aged about 50, give
or take. These folk would have entered service during or shortly after
WW-II, and may have been involved in testing or work environments in the
immediate post-war era and through the fifties that were not fully
understood at the time.

The interesting point was that at the same time (1973 or so), 20 year
retirees enjoyed substantially greater longevity, on average. I can't
recall the figure, but apparently it was that first ten years, including
WW-II, that really hurt. Although many speculated it was that last ten
years of putting up with the CS that was the killer!!

At any rate, it was a hell of a price to pay.