"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
I went to a very liberal NE school, they encouraged conservatives to
express their opinion and to disagree with the professors.

But, of course, those opinions had an effect on their grades.




They should. In a decent college, you're not trained to take tests. You're
trained to debate, interact and make decisions.

I never received an "A" in an English class until I got to college. In
college, I received straight "A's" in English. The difference? In college,
you submitted your writing typed on a sheet of paper with a three-digit
number on the back. The papers were graded without the grader knowing who
wrote them.

I was a math and science guy, so I was never popular with the touchy-feely
liberal arts crowd.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

That's because you listen to those wacky liberal news stations like
NPR.

Heh. Would you like whipped cream on that foot, as long as it's in
your mouth? Three weeks ago, our local NPR radio station interviewed
two people from the NYS department of labor. They were bemoaning the
FACT that although they can offer retraining to mid- and senior-level
engineers who will lose their jobs when Delphi (the auto parts maker)
shuts its doors, they know for a FACT that companies simply do not
exist here which can offer these people anywhere near the money they
were making before. They were talking about people going from 75k to
100k, down to 30k-40k. Not funny when you're 45 years old and your
first kid's going to college next year.

Just because someone was earning $75-100k doesn't mean that they are
guaranteed that amount in the future.

Obviously not, but you're using your incomplete information to "prove"
that wealth is being created, when, on the whole, it may not be.



Consider this:

Before you could look up the exact dealer cost of an automobile....

Blah. This does not support your use of incomplete data. I assume you
realize that if this were a discussion in an economics or statistics
class, your professor would've humiliated you by now.

I went to a conservative university, in a conservative town in a
conservative state. My professors were conservatives. They would not
only have *not* humiliated me, they would have agreed with me.

Bull****. You stated that more jobs were created. You did NOT indicate at
what income levels they were created. 95% may have been jobs which pay
minimum wage. Or not. You don't know.

And neither do you. So aren't you jumping to conclusions by stating
unequivocally that they were minimum wage jobs?

And, you don't know where those employees came from before. Were they
unemployed? Did they leave other jobs for reasons other than money, like
travel distance or job satisfaction? You have no idea. Therefore, you
cannot argue that there was any gain or loss, or that it has any political
significance whatsoever.

Interesting concept. Labor statistics are unimportant.

Then why were the Dems pointing to the labor statistics in '01, '02, and
'03, and talking about "Bush being the first President with a net loss of
jobs" just prior to the election?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:33:07 -0400, "Starbuck's"
wrote:

Harry,
Would you like to compare my real degree, with your imaginary degree?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
I went to a very liberal NE school, they encouraged conservatives to
express their opinion and to disagree with the professors.

But, of course, those opinions had an effect on their grades.





The only Northeast school Smithers got close to was Mrs. Porters School
for Girls, and that was during a drive-by.

--
- - -
George W. Bush, our hero!

"You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the
attacks reminded us that we are at war."—Bush, Washington, D.C., June 8,
2005


Let me know if he answers!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:17:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
I went to a very liberal NE school, they encouraged conservatives to
express their opinion and to disagree with the professors.

But, of course, those opinions had an effect on their grades.




They should. In a decent college, you're not trained to take tests. You're
trained to debate, interact and make decisions.


To be a binary thinker, in other words!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:19:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

That's because you listen to those wacky liberal news stations like
NPR.

Heh. Would you like whipped cream on that foot, as long as it's in your
mouth? Three weeks ago, our local NPR radio station interviewed two
people from the NYS department of labor. They were bemoaning the FACT
that although they can offer retraining to mid- and senior-level
engineers who will lose their jobs when Delphi (the auto parts maker)
shuts its doors, they know for a FACT that companies simply do not
exist here which can offer these people anywhere near the money they
were making before. They were talking about people going from 75k to
100k, down to 30k-40k. Not funny when you're 45 years old and your
first kid's going to college next year.

Just because someone was earning $75-100k doesn't mean that they are
guaranteed that amount in the future.

Obviously not, but you're using your incomplete information to "prove"
that wealth is being created, when, on the whole, it may not be.



Consider this:

Before you could look up the exact dealer cost of an automobile....

Blah. This does not support your use of incomplete data. I assume you
realize that if this were a discussion in an economics or statistics
class, your professor would've humiliated you by now.

I went to a conservative university, in a conservative town in a
conservative state. My professors were conservatives. They would not
only have *not* humiliated me, they would have agreed with me.

Bull****. You stated that more jobs were created. You did NOT indicate at
what income levels they were created. 95% may have been jobs which pay
minimum wage. Or not. You don't know. And, you don't know where those
employees came from before. Were they unemployed? Did they leave other jobs
for reasons other than money, like travel distance or job satisfaction? You
have no idea. Therefore, you cannot argue that there was any gain or loss,
or that it has any political significance whatsoever.


Doug, do you really believe that all these people were hired at minimum wage,
and no supervisors were hired, or promoted? Why not get a little bit real?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

I don't get it.



Finally, a neutral, balanced and factually accurate assessment of the
situation at hand. I didn't think you had it in you.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
Since June 2003, the economy has seen 27 straight months of net job
gains...yielding a *net* gain of 4,172,000 jobs over that same
period.


In the last 18 months alone, we've added 3,533,000 jobs.

Since the election, we've added 1,837,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate stands at 4.9%...which is exactly where it was
prior to 9/11.

Unfortunately, Katrina will probably have a negative impact on the
numbers for the next few months.

http://tinyurl.com/dnb7a

These numbers are meaningless without information on how peoples'
incomes have changed as they take these "new" jobs.

Then I could argue that the numbers from the 90's are meaningless
without
information on how many single-earner households became two income
households out of necessity during that time period. And how much the
second income earner's money contributed to a boost in GDP each year.



We know that YOU like to think
in terms of evil welfare recipients whose incomes are headed upward
when
they get jobs. However, the grownup news has carried numerous stories
about people who were in the 50k-75k white collar category and had to
take nasty pay cuts in order to find ANY job in the area where they
preferred to live.


That's because you listen to those wacky liberal news stations like
NPR.

Heh. Would you like whipped cream on that foot, as long as it's in your
mouth? Three weeks ago, our local NPR radio station interviewed two
people
from the NYS department of labor. They were bemoaning the FACT that
although they can offer retraining to mid- and senior-level engineers
who
will lose their jobs when Delphi (the auto parts maker) shuts its
doors,
they know for a FACT that companies simply do not exist here which can
offer these people anywhere near the money they were making before.
They
were talking about people going from 75k to 100k, down to 30k-40k. Not
funny when you're 45 years old and your first kid's going to college
next
year.

Just because someone was earning $75-100k doesn't mean that they are
guaranteed that amount in the future.

The fact is that in most technical professions.....with the continued grow
of computer technology, fewer people can do more of the work.



Consider this:

Before you could look up the exact dealer cost of an automobile on
edmunds.com, car salesmen were all earning 6 figures. Now, they earn on
average one-third to one-half that.

Hell, I know a commerical real estate broker that was making a half
million a year for several years, now he is lucky to hit six figures.


The reality of a dynamic world has changed the profession. Consumers
would
say for the better...and employees would say for the worse.





But, I guess that the DOL people who are actually interviewing
displaced
workers have no idea what they were talking about, because they were
interviewed on an NPR affiliate station. Right?

In true NPR fashion, they interviewed only folks from one side of the
equation.

My brother just took an engineering job paying a lot more than he was
earning when Bush took office. NPR hasn't interviewed him though.





Try again, but with real data, this time. And, if you have some spare
time, take a course in statistics.

Real data? If I can't get the data from BLS, where am I supposed to
get
it from?

The data is not real because it is not accompanied by missing numbers
required to give it meaning. It's as if I said to you "My friend lost
all
her teeth by the time she was 40." It only tells you she lost her
teeth.
You have no idea how.

In most cases, the "how" really doesn't matter. The fact is that she
now
has no teeth, and needs a denture or implants to replace them.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:03:28 -0400, *JimH* wrote:


"When it comes to the economy, Presidents get far more credit/blame than
they deserve."
(Thunder, September 12, 2005 rec.boats)

Well, Jim, I have been consistent. If you recall, we have had this
conversation before.

On Feb. 19, JimH said:

Why not? You blame everything else on Bush.

I replied:

Nope, I've always thought Presidents are held more responsible for the
economy than is deserving. Presidents may be able to tweak the economy,
but controlling business cycles is a little out of their reach.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...79fb3c024a67eb


Damned if you do and damned if you don't with some folks. ;-)

Thanks for posting the information NOYB.

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:19:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

That's because you listen to those wacky liberal news stations like
NPR.

Heh. Would you like whipped cream on that foot, as long as it's in
your
mouth? Three weeks ago, our local NPR radio station interviewed two
people from the NYS department of labor. They were bemoaning the FACT
that although they can offer retraining to mid- and senior-level
engineers who will lose their jobs when Delphi (the auto parts maker)
shuts its doors, they know for a FACT that companies simply do not
exist here which can offer these people anywhere near the money they
were making before. They were talking about people going from 75k to
100k, down to 30k-40k. Not funny when you're 45 years old and your
first kid's going to college next year.

Just because someone was earning $75-100k doesn't mean that they are
guaranteed that amount in the future.

Obviously not, but you're using your incomplete information to "prove"
that wealth is being created, when, on the whole, it may not be.



Consider this:

Before you could look up the exact dealer cost of an automobile....

Blah. This does not support your use of incomplete data. I assume you
realize that if this were a discussion in an economics or statistics
class, your professor would've humiliated you by now.

I went to a conservative university, in a conservative town in a
conservative state. My professors were conservatives. They would not
only have *not* humiliated me, they would have agreed with me.

Bull****. You stated that more jobs were created. You did NOT indicate at
what income levels they were created. 95% may have been jobs which pay
minimum wage. Or not. You don't know. And, you don't know where those
employees came from before. Were they unemployed? Did they leave other
jobs
for reasons other than money, like travel distance or job satisfaction?
You
have no idea. Therefore, you cannot argue that there was any gain or loss,
or that it has any political significance whatsoever.


Doug, do you really believe that all these people were hired at minimum
wage,
and no supervisors were hired, or promoted? Why not get a little bit real?

I never made any numerical claims. I'm pointing out that this particular
statistic is meaningless without other information. You must know a few math
teachers who enjoy statistics. Ask some of them.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:49:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:19:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

That's because you listen to those wacky liberal news stations like
NPR.

Heh. Would you like whipped cream on that foot, as long as it's in
your
mouth? Three weeks ago, our local NPR radio station interviewed two
people from the NYS department of labor. They were bemoaning the FACT
that although they can offer retraining to mid- and senior-level
engineers who will lose their jobs when Delphi (the auto parts maker)
shuts its doors, they know for a FACT that companies simply do not
exist here which can offer these people anywhere near the money they
were making before. They were talking about people going from 75k to
100k, down to 30k-40k. Not funny when you're 45 years old and your
first kid's going to college next year.

Just because someone was earning $75-100k doesn't mean that they are
guaranteed that amount in the future.

Obviously not, but you're using your incomplete information to "prove"
that wealth is being created, when, on the whole, it may not be.



Consider this:

Before you could look up the exact dealer cost of an automobile....

Blah. This does not support your use of incomplete data. I assume you
realize that if this were a discussion in an economics or statistics
class, your professor would've humiliated you by now.

I went to a conservative university, in a conservative town in a
conservative state. My professors were conservatives. They would not
only have *not* humiliated me, they would have agreed with me.

Bull****. You stated that more jobs were created. You did NOT indicate at
what income levels they were created. 95% may have been jobs which pay
minimum wage. Or not. You don't know. And, you don't know where those
employees came from before. Were they unemployed? Did they leave other
jobs
for reasons other than money, like travel distance or job satisfaction?
You
have no idea. Therefore, you cannot argue that there was any gain or loss,
or that it has any political significance whatsoever.


Doug, do you really believe that all these people were hired at minimum
wage,
and no supervisors were hired, or promoted? Why not get a little bit real?

I never made any numerical claims. I'm pointing out that this particular
statistic is meaningless without other information. You must know a few math
teachers who enjoy statistics. Ask some of them.


Well, then you must also believe that denigrating the jobs as 'low paying' is
also meaningless. True?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."