Unemployment drops to 6%

[red embers]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20031107/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)

I thought this was interesting, considering the thread a few days ago about the number of jobs being cut.

Even though some companies are cutting jobs, others are hiring too. The important stat is what's the net result in the percent unemployed (of course, the other question is whether average income is going up or down to see if people are getting hired into lower paying jobs).

[Sovrana]

I expect there will be a greater increase in jobs soon because I suspect this ace up the sleeve:

Send more troops to Iraq...that will create job openings as well as make voters feel as though we are strengthening our efforts in the Middle East.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
Send more troops to Iraq...that will create job openings as well as make voters feel as though we are strengthening our efforts in the Middle East.

Doesn't look that way:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9974-2003Nov6.html


The pick up in growth and the pick up in employment are due to the tax cuts and the resulting pick up in consumer spending and confidence.

Whether one believes those tax cuts were the best way to do this or believes that the cost of the tax cuts (deficits, etc...) was too high is another question. But they have worked, at least to this point.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by rightstarter
from that same article:

"In fact, although the overall size of the U.S. force in Iraq is being scaled back, the reserve component is due to increase substantially -- from 28,000 at present to 39,000 next year. This could aggravate already serious strains on reservists, who unlike active-duty soldiers hold civilian jobs"

That's an increase of 11,000 versus an increase in jobs -- just over the last two months -- of over 250,000.

Insignificant in the overall picture. The unemployment rate dropped 0.1% with the addition of 126,000 jobs in October and a revision of an additional 68,000 jobs in September. So an addition of 11,000 jobs from reservists would have no measurable effect on the unemployment rate.

[BigSugar]

blah, blah, blah. the economy still sucks solely b/c Bush is in office and won't get subjectively better until a liberal Dem holds the office. geez, don't you all get it yet!??????

from CNN:

"It looks like the labor market is finally getting in step with the rest of the economy. Nonfarm payrolls in October surged more the market than was expecting, while the unemployment rate fell, the government said today.

Stocks started the day higher after the Labor Department said the economy created 126,000 jobs last month and also revised September’s jobs gain to 125,000 from the previously reported 57,000. The unemployment rate fell to 6% from 6.1% in September.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com were expecting the report would show the economy added 65,000 jobs last month, while those surveyed by CNBC and Dow Jones forecast a 55,000 gain. Economists were expecting the unemployment rate to remain unchanged."

so, to recap. this is the economy (shows egg). THIS is the economy on Bush (shows lots of chickens fucking and producing many many more eggs). Any questions? :D

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by rightstarter
I wonder what the black unemployment rate is right about now.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

[RichmondVA]

Asian unemployment rate: Data not available.

Well fvck you too.

Waaay to early to say the economy is recovering, much less if it is because of tax cuts. I suspect the increase in consumer confidence is real, but it never should have been so low to begin with.

The tax cuts may indeed have facilitated the switch, but let's wait a few months. Right now there's not enough data, especially without that critical Asian component. Sure you can get a job, but can you hold a job? Not without clean, starched shirts!

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Waaay to early to say the economy is recovering, much less if it is because of tax cuts.

Agreed on too early, but the 7.2% jump in growth last quarter was definitely a result (at least in substantial part) of the tax cuts. Whether that is an anomaly or will be sustainable is still a question.

And a big boost to confidence has come from this:

S&P 500 +21% year-to-date
NASDAQ +50% year-to-date

[red embers]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Not without clean, starched shirts!
:p

(hmm, is it ok to laugh at someone else's self-deprecating racial humor?)

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by dcXhc
And a big boost to confidence has come from this:

S&P 500 +21% year-to-date
NASDAQ +50% year-to-date

Without question. But then the markets don't go up like that unless people are confident to begin with. Bush hasn't done anything to make justify that kind of increase on fundamentals alone. Not blaming Bush, of course-- that's impossible.

What Bush may have done is increase confidence enough to get the ball rolling and then it feeds off itself to some extent. But that sort of thing is tricky to measure. Opinion polls don't seem to indicate that much pleasure with Bush's handling of the economy, and yet clearly something has changed. So who knows what's going on? I like it though.

And yes, it's fine to laugh since I was obviously joking. I'm a firm believer that acknowledging and laughing at stereotypes exposes how stupid they are and is therefore a good thing. If someone has a problem, it's my fault for throwing that out there.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA

And yes, it's fine to laugh since I was obviously joking. I'm a firm believer that acknowledging and laughing at stereotypes exposes how stupid they are and is therefore a good thing. If someone has a problem, it's my fault for throwing that out there.

I laughed very hard. But then again, I'm drunk. Must be 'cos I'm Irish.

[tobedawg]

based on what I've seen at the mall that I work at, consumer confidence is definately up.. primarily due to people starting their Christmas shopping earlier...

Traffic is even greater this year than it was last year, and the holiday season hasn't even officially begun yet.. We've started hiring our Christmas help already in October AND most of the stores on the mall have their Christmas decorations up..

Maybe this drop in unemployment could be due to seasonal jobs opening up? and the boost in consumer spending could be due to earlier Christmas shopping this year?

Around this time last year, there was alot of uncertainty regarding the potential War on Iraq.. so the increase may be legitamite, at least temporarily..

[Duemellon]

The pick up in growth and the pick up in employment are due to the tax cuts and the resulting pick up in consumer spending and confidence. no, the connection between the better economy is because of the introduction of the new $20 bill.

c'mon man, yah right... b/c ppl/w kids got an extra $400 this year they spent it on froo-fru crap, right? no, they sat on it or spent it on education. Only one person with a "child of tax-cut age" spent it on superfluous crap, and well, she's a selfish ding-bat anyway.I'm a firm believer that acknowledging and laughing at stereotypes exposes how stupid they are and is therefore a good thing. we could go down that discussion path again... I'll just retort by saying your same "jokes" keep the stereotype alive.Maybe this drop in unemployment could be due to seasonal jobs opening up? and the boost in consumer spending could be due to earlier Christmas shopping this year? nah, it's b/c of the Enron scandal is over, Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", a tax cut happened that only benefited families with children under 15, and ppl with massive amounts of investment in companies no longer pay income tax.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Duemellon
c'mon man, yah right... b/c ppl/w kids got an extra $400 this year they spent it on froo-fru crap, right? no, they sat on it or spent it on education.

I don't know whether it was the due to tax cuts or not, but dcXhc is at least partially right. Consmer spending (which includes many non-frou-frou expenditures, including education) was up huge this summer. 1% in July, another 1.1% in August.
That's a huge factor in the GDP growth we saw in the third quarter. I don't see how one could argue any differently.

It dipped .3% in September with personal income going up .3% so maybe that month there was saving (which is good).

On the racist joke tip: yeah, I know you disagree. I didn't post it to wind you up. I figured you would call me on it and I have no problem with your doing so. I respect your position on that. I'm still gonna let fly once in awhile because of the way I feel, but that's the inevitable friction that comes when two people disagree. If other people have problems with it, I'll stop entirely. Fair?

[Duemellon]

If other people have problems with it, I'll stop entirely. Fair? you'll probably want to rephrase that, as that statement sounds as if even one other person was to say "stop" you'd stop. However, it COULD be interepreted to mean that if the majority, or "enough" ppl were to complain you'd stop. Just thought I'd point out the ambiguity before the legal process is begun.Consmer spending (which includes many non-frou-frou expenditures, including education) was up huge this summer. 1% in July, another 1.1% in August. yep. But, of course, to really boost the economy those ppl would've had to spent considerably more than just $400 during that span to boost the econ. Heh, if those ppl just simply turned the check into the local mall it wouldn't've done this.

[RichmondVA]

There was some mortgage refinancing as well, but still. Let's say the average American salary is around $650/week. Assuming constant pay, that's $650*13 or $8450 a quarter. Let's say they blow it all on spending. $400 is about 4.7% of $8450.

I don't think it matters how much they spent or saved as long as the ratio of spending/saving was the same between the tax refund and the usual ratio. If the average American salary is less than $650 a week that just means that the $400 represents an even greater portion of quarterly income so it would have a greater effect on spending.

You take that 4.7% and you mix it with a very favorable mortgage rate that led to a lot of refinancing and that's your 7.2% GDP growth. That's what the economists say, and it makes sense to me. These are all very rough calculations and who knows what really happened, but it is indeed possible for that tax cut to have driven the vast majority of the growth.

As for the jokes, howzabout this: I just stop. Happy? Lameass. :p

[Duemellon]

As for the jokes, howzabout this: I just stop. Happy? Lameass. now where would be the challenge in that? huh? I mean asking you to rephrase your conditional trigger that would shut you down by turning it into a precise and measurable item as if it was a legal document was just the beginning!

Just imagine the hassles I'd give you when marking the gradual steps to that point!

fun fun fun.. for ev ree won!

[RichmondVA]

aahhh. . but I refuse to be drawn into your little ruse.

My ability to avoid your pointless arguments while at the same time relentlessy pursuing my own equally pointless arguments where I can blitz you with technical minutiae and run-on sentences is what makes me aces in the courtroom.

That, and my penchant for the occasional cheapshot eg. posting pictures of you at a Rilo Kiley concert:
http://www.rilokiley.net/_pictures/072603_31.jpg

Your Honor, I move for Summary Judgement. This case is over.

[Duemellon]

God man, did Dx give you that? That bastard has been stalking me worse than CGrrl.

And yeah, I kno she wanted me. I hung out in the back alley until she left. When I waved she looked right at me. I've paid someone to get me her home number and address 'cuz, well, anyone can see she wants me.

oh...and racist jokes are bad.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by BigSugar
blah, blah, blah. the economy still sucks solely b/c Bush is in office and won't get subjectively better until a liberal Dem holds the office. geez, don't you all get it yet!??????


I admit...you are at least partially if not completely correct about this. If Clinton showed the "largest job growth in 3 years" I would be more likely to celebrate.....because we would be starting with Clinton's economic plan. (the bar is by definition set higher)

Marking a job growth for Bush would never impress me since thousands of jobs have been lost under him.

As some have indicated her, this job growth merely recflects the coming holidays. And I wouldn't even go so far as to see this early holiday spending as an indication of a positive outlook on the economy. I think it is more like frantic spending. This admin just approved of putting $87B on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Let's just soften the blow by buying those toys now so these kids can at least have fond memories of past holidays. Or just hurry up and spend before everything is gone....like an economic armegeddon.

Yes...I so hate Bush and I will never EVER concede that he is good for this country. We somehow let this egotistical, selfish, arrogant moron in the WH and early holiday spending is nothing more than an illustration of these as Days of Atonement.

(wow! all these religious metaphors...perhaps I should go to church) :)

[Duemellon]

We somehow let this egotistical, selfish, arrogant moron in the WH he's in the Waffle House now? Holy shit, that's why my scatter-smothered-double-covered were undercooked and the cheese was stacked, instead of spaced apart. Fuckin moron.

and still... isn't it great that more of are working for less than we did less than 3 years ago? And no, not by 2 or 3 dollars/hour, most of us who've had to reinvent our career-paths are 20 - 66% under our previous salary.

Thanks G-dub for getting me a job I can only survive on by cancelling my plans for retiring by 70. Heck, at this rate I can expect to be working until I'm a centigenarians. I'm so glad the meds I'll need will be low-cost and covered by the government.

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Sovrana


I admit...you are at least partially if not completely correct about this. If Clinton showed the "largest job growth in 3 years" I would be more likely to celebrate.....because we would be starting with Clinton's economic plan. (the bar is by definition set higher)

Or because you are too lost in the hypocracy to realise that it's a generally accepted fact that the economic policies of an administration aren't felt in full force for 4-7 years after they're implemented?

The economy sucks now? Who was in office 4-7 years ago?

I do not attribute the current economic indicators, good OR bad, to anything Bush has done in the recent past.

Yes, Bush has pulled some real boners lately, but to think that his decisions will have such a radical effect so quickly is foolish.

Oh, I forgot; Bush is evil to the core. This "fact" overrides all the lessons of history and the general logic one can apply them with.

Phreon

[onest2.0]

Anyone got underemployment numbers?

[onest2.0]

hmm..no responses???

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by onest2.0
hmm..no responses???

actually, we all got together and decided to exclude you....

[monkey neck]

Dangit, BS, you broke the agreement. You talked to him. He wins again. That onest is a clever one.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by monkey neck
Dangit, BS, you broke the agreement. You talked to him. He wins again. That onest is a clever one.

DADGUMIT!!! stupid liberal mind controls!!! sorry MN....it won't happen again.....

Vote for Dean!!! AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH....NOT AGAIN!!