| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--Something that hasn't made the news
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 |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 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. Crappy Bush jobs for the most part, not real jobs that pay good wages, provide decent benefits, and support a family. Hmmmm. I don't see that commentary anywhere on the non-partisan www.bls.gov website. The only thing that I can find on their site is strong employment numbers for almost 2 1/2 years. |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:10:51 +0000, NOYB wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/dnb7a Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House. Damn, who would have thought? |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:10:51 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
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 Yeah, but these are all minimum wage jobs, according to the libs. They never seem to get the idea that there must be *some* decent paying jobs developed, just to supervise all the minimum wage earners! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:10:51 +0000, NOYB wrote: http://tinyurl.com/dnb7a Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House. Damn, who would have thought? Net job loss? Over what time period? When I look at the graph, I consistently see a downward slope in the numbers starting in the year preceding when a Republican took office. |
"thunder" wrote in message Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House. Damn, who would have thought? You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable. |
Harry:
I pay well and still have a hard time finding good high tech people. I have to recruit from the local university staff so the university is mad at me. David OHara |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:31:40 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:
You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable. Thank you and I would agree. When it comes to the economy, Presidents get far more credit/blame than they deserve. Now, if you could just get NOYB to see the light. |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House. Damn, who would have thought? You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable. Indeed they do see what they want to see. Unfortunately your effort to explain a natural phenomenon such as a business cycle in non-partisan terms is ultimately wasted on the armchair partisan political hacks that populate this forum. They genuinely believe that all that happens - good or bad - is directly the result of the policies of the party leaders that they either love or hate. All good comes from my side of the aisle, all bad comes from the other. Such is their sad polarized view of the world. What a dreadfully tedious drumbeat to march to. |
NOYB wrote: 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 Holy ****, talk about SPIN!!! I just love how you pick and choose just exactly which statistics you prefer to post and believe!!!!! I take it that you didn't look at the whole labor picture? I also like how you take a specifice period that is only when bushco has been president to use as a model for your "net gain". |
Here Here! You are very correct it is quit pathetic!
|
"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. 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. Try again, but with real data, this time. And, if you have some spare time, take a course in statistics. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:31:40 -0400, John Gaquin wrote: You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable. Thank you and I would agree. When it comes to the economy, Presidents get far more credit/blame than they deserve. Now, if you could just get NOYB to see the light. Why are you turning my thread into a political post? I simply posted labor statistics for the last 27 months, the last 18 months, and the last 10 months. There was no blame or credit assigned to any party or any person in particular. That is, until *you* and Harry started with the attack-Bush-and-the-Republicans garbage. |
"RG" wrote in message news:NDiVe.8810$mH.8732@fed1read07... "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message Interesting graph. If you take it back to 1977, you will note that the only times we had net job loss, a Republican was in the White House. Damn, who would have thought? You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable. Indeed they do see what they want to see. Unfortunately your effort to explain a natural phenomenon such as a business cycle in non-partisan terms is ultimately wasted on the armchair partisan political hacks that populate this forum. They genuinely believe that all that happens - good or bad - is directly the result of the policies of the party leaders that they either love or hate. All good comes from my side of the aisle, all bad comes from the other. Such is their sad polarized view of the world. What a dreadfully tedious drumbeat to march to. Read back, RG. You'll see that Harry turned an statistical/informational thread into a political one. And then thunder piled on with his "take it back to 1977, only when a Republican was in the WH" claim. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:31:40 -0400, John Gaquin wrote: You see what you want to see. Harken back, if you will, to Bus101, and run that graph back many additional years. What you see is the ever present business cycle at work, inevitable and immutable. Thank you and I would agree. When it comes to the economy, Presidents get far more credit/blame than they deserve. Now, if you could just get NOYB to see the light. Why are you turning my thread into a political post? I simply posted labor statistics for the last 27 months, the last 18 months, and the last 10 months. There was no blame or credit assigned to any party or any person in particular. That is, until *you* and Harry started with the attack-Bush-and-the-Republicans garbage. How funny. When the economic news is bad many partisans were sure to rush in and blame Bush. Now that things have been looking positive for the past couple of years their answer is: "When it comes to the economy, Presidents get far more credit/blame than they deserve." (Thunder, September 12, 2005 rec.boats) Damned if you do and damned if you don't with some folks. ;-) Thanks for posting the information NOYB. |
"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. 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? |
Read back, RG. You'll see that Harry turned an statistical/informational thread into a political one. And then thunder piled on with his "take it back to 1977, only when a Republican was in the WH" claim. "armchair partisan political hacks that populate this forum" If the shoe fits... If it serves you to claim no political intent to this post, and if you believe such a claim extends to exonerate you any history of such activity, then I simply leave you to the enjoyment of your delusion. And please don't allow your sense of self-importance to allow you to believe that I am singling you out. I usually make a point of trying to protect the innocent, it's just that they're so god damned hard to find around here. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: I simply added together the net gains for each month over the last 27 months. I chose 27 months as the time period, because that is when the monthly net losses turned to monthly net gains (ie--a turning point in our economy). So for 27 *consecutive* months, we've had positive net job gains. That's pretty damn significant. Betcha don't want to break out those jobs as to type, earnings, benefits, et cetera. I'd more than welcome seeing the results from that analysis. Have at it. Besides, you're better at dissembling. |
"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. 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? 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. |
"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. 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. 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. |
"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. 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. That's a stupid thing to say. Long weekend? Not recovered yet? Drink more water. |
"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. 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. That's a stupid thing to say. Long weekend? Not recovered yet? Drink more water. |
I went to a very liberal NE school, they encouraged conservatives to express
their opinion and to disagree with the professors. "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. 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. That's a stupid thing to say. Long weekend? Not recovered yet? Drink more water. |
"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. |
"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. |
"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, 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. |
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 |
Their opinions did not have an effect on their grades, their ability to
express their opinions and support that opinion with a viable argument did effect their grades. "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. |
"RG" wrote in message news:_EjVe.8816$mH.3300@fed1read07... Read back, RG. You'll see that Harry turned an statistical/informational thread into a political one. And then thunder piled on with his "take it back to 1977, only when a Republican was in the WH" claim. "armchair partisan political hacks that populate this forum" If the shoe fits... If it serves you to claim no political intent to this post, and if you believe such a claim extends to exonerate you any history of such activity, then I simply leave you to the enjoyment of your delusion. I don't get it. Bad news=news Good news=political I'm just pointing out that the sour mood sweeping over this country is because the news media only reports on the bad news...and ignores the good news. |
"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." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com