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.

On 12 Sep 2005 10:28:31 -0700, wrote:


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".

Did you keep any stats on your 'Desmo'? What kind of gas mileage did it get? How
fast did it go in the quarter mile? How many wheels did it have?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."