"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Unemployment rates have been calculated in exactly the same way for decades.
If you
find flaw in the way they are developed I suggest you contact the US BLS.

Your article didn't address unemployment rates at all.

The BLS links I provided at the bottom of that post certainly did. Did you miss that?

It specifically noted
"new claims for unemployment benefits." Sea Dweller is right- it's only a
measurement of how many additional people joined the ranks of the unemployed-
just under 400,000 each week noted in the report.

We'd have to compare the number of new jobs created (a statistic missing from
the new account) with the number of people laid off and fired as well as the
number of
"discouraged" workers who have run out of
benefits, still can't find work, and move in with relatives, etc, to determine
whether total employment went up or down.

If unemployment is declining, that's great. But you can't show that by noting
the "new claims for jobless benefits". The claims only establish the rate at
which people are becoming unemployed, not how many people are laid off vs.
working.


Put whatever spin you want on it but I stand by my previous statement and the facts I
presented.



With greater productivity comes higher corporate profits (that is, afterall,
what
companies are in business for, correct?) which leads to expansions and more
employees.
That is Economy 101.

No, that's not what recent history has shown us.

I see you use the disclaimer *recent* when looking at history. Interesting.

But history *has* shown us exactly what I described.

Ever take an economics course Chuck?

Been to major downtown bank
lately? Forty years ago, a big bank would have been wall to wall desks. Lending
officers, accountants, clerks, secretaries, typists, etc. Today, your footsteps
echo across acres of empty, marble floors. More efficient technology created
productivity increases, so banks are able to accomplish more business and
earn more profits with far *fewer* people than ever before. The banking
industry did not use the increased profits to increase payroll.......just the
opposite. It used the decreased payroll to further increase profits. One of the
banks I do business with has a goofy looking telephone booth in the lobby,
along with a sign that says
"Talk to a banker!" You pick up the phone and get transferred to some high
school kid reading a script in Omaha, for all I know. Increased efficiency and
productivity
seldom result in an increase in payroll....and one of the corporate incentives
to be more productive and efficient is to be in a position to *decrease*
payroll expense.

Automation has reduced the number of workers needed to do a job. Productivity has
increased as a result of it.

Menial jobs have been replaced by robots and PC's. Many have also gone overseas. You
have to be educated and offer a skill to survive in todays job market. The days of the
high school graduate working on an assembly line and making the same money as a college
educated teacher or engineer are numbered.

Like it or not automation is here to stay. And it is not a bad thing. Get with the
times or get passed over.


"We could automate widget packaging. The machine would cost $300,000."

"We really shouldn't spend $300,000 this quarter."

"We can eliminate 4 employees in the packing department, and with benefits
considered we'll save almost $200k in the next 12 months. That's a fairly
decent return on investment."

"Sold!"

That's reality, 101.

No, that is negative thinking and speculation 101.



The productivity rate increased to 5.7%, almost twice the annual average of
2.8% from
'96 to '02.

Could it be some of the remaining workers are so frightened for their jobs they
are working a few hours "off the clock'?

Again, negative thinking and conjecture.

I would hate to live in your negative world Chuck.