|
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"MadDogDave" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.0383a4a8de913cb41afafd9840c25c48@106 2775970.cotse.net... September 5, 2003 Layoffs Rose Sharply Last Month, Report Says By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- The civilian unemployment rate improved marginally last month -- sliding to 6.1 percent -- as companies slashed payrolls by 93,000. Friday's report sent mixed signals about the nation's overall economic health. August was the seventh consecutive month of cuts in payrolls, a survey released by the Labor Department showed, indicating continuing weakness in the job market. Thank Jesus for President Bush!!!!!!!!!! That's a hell of a thing to lay on Jesus' lap. What did he do to deserve George Bush? Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened they're giving up and not bothering to report. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
jps wrote:
"MadDogDave" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.0383a4a8de913cb41afafd9840c25c48@106 2775970.cotse.net... September 5, 2003 Layoffs Rose Sharply Last Month, Report Says By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- The civilian unemployment rate improved marginally last month -- sliding to 6.1 percent -- as companies slashed payrolls by 93,000. Friday's report sent mixed signals about the nation's overall economic health. August was the seventh consecutive month of cuts in payrolls, a survey released by the Labor Department showed, indicating continuing weakness in the job market. Thank Jesus for President Bush!!!!!!!!!! That's a hell of a thing to lay on Jesus' lap. What did he do to deserve George Bush? Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened they're giving up and not bothering to report. The economy is in the crapper. Americans tell how things are going by whether they and the people they know have jobs and any sort of job security. So far, Bush has no answers for job creation. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
bb wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:49:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: So far, Bush has no answers for job creation. Now Harry, there you go again. Isn't that axe sharp enough yet? Mr Bush just came out and said what we need are more tax cuts. It is an interesting concept that what the economy needed to get going again was tax cuts for the rich. Were there some tax increases to the rich that put the economy in a tail spin to begin with? It seemed like we were doing just fine, robust economy, budget surplus, and then things went down hill around election time. I'll not blame Clinton, or Bush, but lay it on a normal economic cycle brought on by Greenspan's interest rate hikes. Maybe what Greenspan did was needed considering how the economy was charging along and it was time to get the Dems out of the white house. But, what happened was a normal business cycle. The rich, or anyone else, being over taxed was not a problem or we wouldn't have had such a strong economy for so long under Clinton. No, the recession was just a good excuse to bilk the national treasury for the good of Mr Bush's cronies. bb It's early yet for most Americans to even begin thinking about the national elections. But the possibilities are interesting. We're a little more than a year away, and we have a president who cannot get a grasp on the economy, who has ruined decades of diplomacy, who has ensnarled us in a war with a country that wasn't our enemy, who has taken steps to worsen the environment, erode workers' rights, hand out huge payoffs to the oil and drug industries, who has whittled away the Bill of Rights, and who has made our country the laughing stock of the world. I have no idea who the Democratic nominees will be, but if they are a pair willing to body slam Bush really hard for a year, they may well beat him enough enough to send him back to Crawford, Texas. I like Howard Dean as an orator - he has the fire in his belly - but I don't know if his dog will hunt in the South. Pair him up with Wesley Clark and you'll have a really interesting team that could slaughter the Bu****es on domestic policy, diplomacy, and, of course, running the military properly. Notice how Bush has kind of stopped talking about Iraq and is now trying to "handle" the economy? Pathetic. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"jps" wrote in message ... "MadDogDave" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.0383a4a8de913cb41afafd9840c25c48@106 2775970.cotse.net... September 5, 2003 Layoffs Rose Sharply Last Month, Report Says By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- The civilian unemployment rate improved marginally last month -- sliding to 6.1 percent -- as companies slashed payrolls by 93,000. Friday's report sent mixed signals about the nation's overall economic health. August was the seventh consecutive month of cuts in payrolls, a survey released by the Labor Department showed, indicating continuing weakness in the job market. Thank Jesus for President Bush!!!!!!!!!! That's a hell of a thing to lay on Jesus' lap. What did he do to deserve George Bush? Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened they're giving up and not bothering to report. The unemployment rate is determined by surveying households. The other figure is determined by sampling certain businesses. If you sample households, and the results tell you there were fewer people unemployed in August than in July, then why do the businesses report a cut in payrolls by 93,000? Simple...that survey ignores small business. Small business is beginning to hire in pretty large numbers. If the surveyed businesses lay off a net amount of 93,000 employees, but the unemployment rate falls, then that means these employees are being absorbed into the job market in small businesses not accounted for in the original survey. "Unemployment rate" is the key figure... I just had an interesting conversation with my dad this evening. He works for a manufacturing company that supplies the airline industry. Me: "How's business?" Dad: "Had a terrible week" Me: "Sales down?" Dad: "No...up." Me: "Why the bad week?" Dad: "Our productivity is maxed out, and we can't get the product made and out the door fast enough." Me: "Why doesn't your manufacturing plant hire more people?" Dad: "The plant managers want to see some more hard data showing that the economy is improving." Me: "Don't they know about all the orders they've been having trouble filling?" Dad: "Yup. But they want to make sure it's a real rebound that's taking place before they hire back everyone they had laid off." Me: "What are customers saying about you not getting product to 'em?" Dad: "Some of the orders we had earlier in the year are getting cancelled." Me: "But that will hurt your future sales...so your "managers" are self-fulfilling their own prophecy that business might not be that good yet! Better fire the managers and hire some Republicans that want the economy to improve...not keep the obviously Democratic managers that are hoping the economy flounders." Dad: "I'm beginning to think that's the problem." That's a micro example of what's also going on in the macro sense...and the very reason that employment figures lag an increase in GDP by approximately 6 months. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Harry is in Dreamland again. Every poll that pairs Bush against any of the
current Democratic contenders gives him a dobule digit lead. The only time Bush is matched evenly, is when he's polled against an anonymous "Democratic candidate". People insert their "dream candidate" into that position, and Bush still splits evenly with the fictional super-Dem. All of this is taking place at a time when, according to Harry, things couldn't be worse for this country. Well, they're only going to get better over the next 14 months...and Bush will win in a landslide. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "jps" wrote in message ... "MadDogDave" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.0383a4a8de913cb41afafd9840c25c48@106 2775970.cotse.net... September 5, 2003 Layoffs Rose Sharply Last Month, Report Says By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- The civilian unemployment rate improved marginally last month -- sliding to 6.1 percent -- as companies slashed payrolls by 93,000. Friday's report sent mixed signals about the nation's overall economic health. August was the seventh consecutive month of cuts in payrolls, a survey released by the Labor Department showed, indicating continuing weakness in the job market. Thank Jesus for President Bush!!!!!!!!!! That's a hell of a thing to lay on Jesus' lap. What did he do to deserve George Bush? Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened they're giving up and not bothering to report. The unemployment rate is determined by surveying households. The other figure is determined by sampling certain businesses. If you sample households, and the results tell you there were fewer people unemployed in August than in July, then why do the businesses report a cut in payrolls by 93,000? Simple...that survey ignores small business. Small business is beginning to hire in pretty large numbers. If the surveyed businesses lay off a net amount of 93,000 employees, but the unemployment rate falls, then that means these employees are being absorbed into the job market in small businesses not accounted for in the original survey. "Unemployment rate" is the key figure... I just had an interesting conversation with my dad this evening. He works for a manufacturing company that supplies the airline industry. Me: "How's business?" Dad: "Had a terrible week" Me: "Sales down?" Dad: "No...up." Me: "Why the bad week?" Dad: "Our productivity is maxed out, and we can't get the product made and out the door fast enough." Me: "Why doesn't your manufacturing plant hire more people?" Dad: "The plant managers want to see some more hard data showing that the economy is improving." Me: "Don't they know about all the orders they've been having trouble filling?" Dad: "Yup. But they want to make sure it's a real rebound that's taking place before they hire back everyone they had laid off." Me: "What are customers saying about you not getting product to 'em?" Dad: "Some of the orders we had earlier in the year are getting cancelled." Me: "But that will hurt your future sales...so your "managers" are self-fulfilling their own prophecy that business might not be that good yet! Better fire the managers and hire some Republicans that want the economy to improve...not keep the obviously Democratic managers that are hoping the economy flounders." Dad: "I'm beginning to think that's the problem." That's a micro example of what's also going on in the macro sense...and the very reason that employment figures lag an increase in GDP by approximately 6 months. Exactly! Companies do not like to lay off workers. They want to make sure that these are not little farts in the economy they are seeing before they hire more workers....the last thing they want is to have to lay them off because they misread the indicators. That is why productivity is up. An increase in employment is the last thing a growing economy always sees. But it will come. Thinking people understand that. People blinded by political bigotry do not. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"NOYB" wrote in message ... Harry is in Dreamland again. Every poll that pairs Bush against any of the current Democratic contenders gives him a dobule digit lead. The only time Bush is matched evenly, is when he's polled against an anonymous "Democratic candidate". People insert their "dream candidate" into that position, and Bush still splits evenly with the fictional super-Dem. All of this is taking place at a time when, according to Harry, things couldn't be worse for this country. Well, they're only going to get better over the next 14 months...and Bush will win in a landslide. And people ask why Hillary is not in it....she knows she does not stand a chance. She would most likely win the Democratic primary if she got into the race. The fact that she does not is a good indicator of how strong of a lead GWB has right now. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Hillary is treading water right now, waiting for a time when she thinks she
might actually have a chance. Right now, she thinks 2008 is that time. Of course she wrote off 2004. She knows Bush is unbeatable. He's affable, and that's the main trait in politics that keeps guys in office. I can't wait to see Jeb crush her 2008, though. "Jim" wrote in message news:Cxb6b.272751$cF.84510@rwcrnsc53... "NOYB" wrote in message ... Harry is in Dreamland again. Every poll that pairs Bush against any of the current Democratic contenders gives him a dobule digit lead. The only time Bush is matched evenly, is when he's polled against an anonymous "Democratic candidate". People insert their "dream candidate" into that position, and Bush still splits evenly with the fictional super-Dem. All of this is taking place at a time when, according to Harry, things couldn't be worse for this country. Well, they're only going to get better over the next 14 months...and Bush will win in a landslide. And people ask why Hillary is not in it....she knows she does not stand a chance. She would most likely win the Democratic primary if she got into the race. The fact that she does not is a good indicator of how strong of a lead GWB has right now. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"NOYB" wrote in message
... snip All of this is taking place at a time when, according to Harry, things couldn't be worse for this country. Well, they're only going to get better over the next 14 months...and Bush will win in a landslide. As you like to say, I put this in a storage folder. We can come back to this after the election. Mark Browne |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"NOYB" wrote in message ... Hillary is treading water right now, waiting for a time when she thinks she might actually have a chance. Right now, she thinks 2008 is that time. Of course she wrote off 2004. She knows Bush is unbeatable. He's affable, and that's the main trait in politics that keeps guys in office. I can't wait to see Jeb crush her 2008, though. snip Again, into a storage folder. We can pull it out in 2008 and see how you did. Mark Browne |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
I'll add it to mine. "See-I-told-you-so's" are so much fun.
"Mark Browne" wrote in message et... "NOYB" wrote in message ... snip All of this is taking place at a time when, according to Harry, things couldn't be worse for this country. Well, they're only going to get better over the next 14 months...and Bush will win in a landslide. As you like to say, I put this in a storage folder. We can come back to this after the election. Mark Browne |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:19:13 GMT, bb wrote:
I'll not blame Clinton, or Bush, but lay it on a normal economic cycle... ======================================= That's not an acceptable answer even if it does happen to be true. In politics it ALWAYS has to be someone's fault, and it's ALWAYS the other guy. If the economy is really so bad, I'd like to know who these people are bidding up the price of housing to stratospheric levels. In my business it has always been a game of musical chairs, good times or bad. The guys who keep working are the ones looking down the road several moves ahead, figuring out where to land next, and never burning any bridges. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"John Gaquin" wrote in message news:knd6b.271 Oh, what's a girl to do? In Hillary's case, probably another girl. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 02:35:04 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
Productivity isn't just up...it's waaaaaaaaaay up. It really can't go up anymore. ======================== It can and will. The technological breakthroughs of the last ten to twenty years are just starting to kick into high gear. Take a look at that video link Chuck Gould posted last week with boats being built, and fitted out, using robotic machine tools. Anyone worried about their job going away should learn some new skills. Those robots are going to need a LOT of care and feeding. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
That's not an acceptable answer even if it does happen to be true. In
politics it ALWAYS has to be someone's fault, and it's ALWAYS the other guy. If the economy is really so bad, I'd like to know who these people are bidding up the price of housing to stratospheric levels. The Federal Reserve. Home buyers are the ultimate "payment buyer." The percentage of folks writing out a check for $468,900 to move into a rickey-tickey cul-de-sac clone 40 miles from town in "New Westchester Estates" (or some other pretentiously named community) is likely to be in the low single digits. Even if you can afford to pay cash for housing, the interest rates make it more atractive to borrow. Housing prices are no more logical than were the prices of stocks in 1999. "It's worth it because that's what the last guy paid for the same offering, and it's going up in value so fast we have to buy now or we'll never afford it again!" While declining interest rates have allowed payment buyers to pay some very high prices for housing of late, those same interest rates cannot continue to fall. My wife recently mentioned to me that the overnight Fed Funds rate is hovering around 1 percent. That has to be about the bottom, unless investors are going to be willing to pay to have their money stored for them. :-) When those interest rates start to rise, as they will to cover the cost of the Iraq invasion and attract investors to cover our record national debt, housing prices could be a short-term victim. People might want to move to a newer, nicer, house but if stepping up $100k in mortgage balance at a higher interest rate changes that just barely doable $2500 a month mortgage note to $4100, a lot of people will decide to "stay put" instead. At that time, those who *must* sell will have no choice except to dump the price as low as they can manage to go, and that will bring the price of all similar houses down as well. Higher end houses in areas with a lot of unemployment have not appreciated at all, and have declined in supposed "value" in many cases. Seattle is a good example. Our own place is a humble little tarpaper shack, of course, but our run down dump is surrounded (by outraged neighbors) in one of the priciest districts in town. We couldn't afford to buy even our meager little hut if we moved to Seattle today, but we have lived at our present address about ten years. As the dot.com boom roared on, housing prices in our neighborhood of 100-year old wood frame houses blew clear up into the seven digit category. We were shocked when prices crept up to this level, but the houses sold fairly quickly and in many cases before there was an advertised reduction in the listing price. Some of those "Million dollar" houses have since resold. The one on a corner a block away started at $1.1mm, dropped to $950k, dropped to 895, 875, 845, 825, and finally $795k before the "SOLD" sign went up. $795k was less than we remember the house advertised for when it last sold- so it's likely the latest reseller sacrificed some of his initial down payment just to get rid of the house at this point....and of course just forget any "appreciation." Some houses in the neighborhood have started extremely high, dropped a few steps, and then been withdrawn from sale. Low end houses (meaning in the low six-figure category in W. Wash) have held their own and shown some appreciation in this region, but there is a lesson to be learned from the decline in prices for the highest priced homes....the price of a house is not supportable unless it is affordable to enough buyers to create competitive demand. When the mortgage rates rise much faster than wages, something has to give way. Price is usually that something. Remember that when 5% mortgages go to 6%, the interest rate has gone up only 1% but the cost of money has increased by a factor of 20%....(6 being a number 120% as large as 5). With workers having to strike to get 2, 3, or 4% annual raises these days, (and many others willing to forego any sort of raise and just grateful to be working at all) an overnight 20% increase in the cost of *anything* will put a damper on demand for that item. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Have you tried to find
anyone competent in a Home Depot lately? YMMV, but a high percentage of people working at Home Depot around here are people who used to work in the various building trades but gave it up due to injury, economics, advancing age, etc. Wages are down enough in some of the local building trades that steady work at Home Depot pays as well as on-again, off-again work as a framer, wire puller, plumber's helper, etc. Even though construction is doing OK, most of the workers on many of the job sites don't speak English. The contractors pick them up down on Western Avenue every morning, where hundreds of day laborers, primarily of Hispanic ethnicity, are lined up sober, dressed for work, and with tool box in hand. The going rate is $10 an hour- cash paid daily. No questions asked, no records kept, no union demands, no pesky fringe benefits or workman's compensation insurance. If a guy falls off a ladder and breaks his back, too bad I guess- legally he was never there. But I would agree in general. We have a regional large scale variety and food store called Fred Meyer. They probably pay thier entry level people minimum wage, and managers a buck or two more per hour. Walked into Freddie's the other day to pick up some small item, and there was a big colorful display set up in the foyer inviting people to apply for "a career" at Fred Meyer. When things were more robust, all the low wage, undesirable employers had "help wanted" signs plastered everywhere. This set up at Freddie's was the first such item that I have actually noticed in the last few years. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:17:50 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: If the economy is really so bad, I'd like to know who these people are bidding up the price of housing to stratospheric levels. I think the economy is so bad, but everybody is not feeling the pinch. How many jobs have been lost in the last few years? Certainly those people who are out of work aren't bidding up the real estate. I think the burden of this recession is being felt by the lower end of the economic ladder. That's pretty normal I guess, but I don't think this administration gives a hoot about those who are hurting. In my business it has always been a game of musical chairs, good times or bad. The guys who keep working are the ones looking down the road several moves ahead, figuring out where to land next, and never burning any bridges. Mines about the same. I'm always surprised to be one of the ones surviving. bb |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"NOYB" wrote in message
... Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened they're giving up and not bothering to report. The unemployment rate is determined by surveying households. The other figure is determined by sampling certain businesses. If you sample households, and the results tell you there were fewer people unemployed in August than in July, then why do the businesses report a cut in payrolls by 93,000? Simple...that survey ignores small business. Small business is beginning to hire in pretty large numbers. If the surveyed businesses lay off a net amount of 93,000 employees, but the unemployment rate falls, then that means these employees are being absorbed into the job market in small businesses not accounted for in the original survey. "Unemployment rate" is the key figure... "Small business is starting to hire in pretty large numbers" but since those figures aren't tracked, you have no proof of your theory, right? Then where do you get your information from and how do you know that it's not people who've exhausted their unemployment benefits? |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"Jim" wrote in message
news:Yrb6b.368926$YN5.247563@sccrnsc01... Exactly! Companies do not like to lay off workers. They want to make sure that these are not little farts in the economy they are seeing before they hire more workers....the last thing they want is to have to lay them off because they misread the indicators. That is why productivity is up. WRONG! The reason productivity is up is because people are working longer hours and taking fewer holidays in an attempt to keep their jobs and livelyhoods. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Gould 0738 wrote:
Have you tried to find anyone competent in a Home Depot lately? YMMV, but a high percentage of people working at Home Depot around here are people who used to work in the various building trades but gave it up due to injury, economics, advancing age, etc. Wages are down enough in some of the local building trades that steady work at Home Depot pays as well as on-again, off-again work as a framer, wire puller, plumber's helper, etc. Even though construction is doing OK, most of the workers on many of the job sites don't speak English. The contractors pick them up down on Western Avenue every morning, where hundreds of day laborers, primarily of Hispanic ethnicity, are lined up sober, dressed for work, and with tool box in hand. The going rate is $10 an hour- cash paid daily. No questions asked, no records kept, no union demands, no pesky fringe benefits or workman's compensation insurance. If a guy falls off a ladder and breaks his back, too bad I guess- legally he was never there. But I would agree in general. We have a regional large scale variety and food store called Fred Meyer. They probably pay thier entry level people minimum wage, and managers a buck or two more per hour. Walked into Freddie's the other day to pick up some small item, and there was a big colorful display set up in the foyer inviting people to apply for "a career" at Fred Meyer. When things were more robust, all the low wage, undesirable employers had "help wanted" signs plastered everywhere. This set up at Freddie's was the first such item that I have actually noticed in the last few years. Ah, yes...the Brave New Republican World. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Productivity isn't just up...it's waaaaaaaaaay up. It really can't go up
anymore...which means even the the pessimists will be needing to hire additional people soon. Productivity has gone up while employment has declined. Why would further increases in productivity necessarily require corresponding increases in employment? We're not producing more stuff -as much as we are producing a little less stuff with a whole lot less people. That goes down as a productivity "gain" based on efficiency, but doesn't do much to increase the base of overall wealth. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
|
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Remember that when 5% mortgages go to 6%, the interest rate has gone up only 1% but the cost of money has increased by a factor of 20%....(6 being a number 120% as large as 5). Just when it seems that you do indeed *have* a brain, you post something like this. If a mortgage rate goes up from 5% to 6%, the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage goes up by a little under 12%...not 20%. For a 15 year mortgage, the change is just a little bit under 7%. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Productivity isn't just up...it's waaaaaaaaaay up. It really can't go up anymore...which means even the the pessimists will be needing to hire additional people soon. Productivity has gone up while employment has declined. Why would further increases in productivity necessarily require corresponding increases in employment? Because in order to continue growing, a company must then invest in *either* labor or capital (ie--automate their processes). If they invest in capital, someone has to make that automated machinery...and there is an increase in employment at the supplier's end. We're not producing more stuff -as much as we are producing a little less stuff with a whole lot less people. That goes down as a productivity "gain" based on efficiency, but doesn't do much to increase the base of overall wealth. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total man-hours
needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour (ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity numbers by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You increase productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets per hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business class? "jps" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message news:Yrb6b.368926$YN5.247563@sccrnsc01... Exactly! Companies do not like to lay off workers. They want to make sure that these are not little farts in the economy they are seeing before they hire more workers....the last thing they want is to have to lay them off because they misread the indicators. That is why productivity is up. WRONG! The reason productivity is up is because people are working longer hours and taking fewer holidays in an attempt to keep their jobs and livelyhoods. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"jps" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened they're giving up and not bothering to report. The unemployment rate is determined by surveying households. The other figure is determined by sampling certain businesses. If you sample households, and the results tell you there were fewer people unemployed in August than in July, then why do the businesses report a cut in payrolls by 93,000? Simple...that survey ignores small business. Small business is beginning to hire in pretty large numbers. If the surveyed businesses lay off a net amount of 93,000 employees, but the unemployment rate falls, then that means these employees are being absorbed into the job market in small businesses not accounted for in the original survey. "Unemployment rate" is the key figure... "Small business is starting to hire in pretty large numbers" but since those figures aren't tracked, you have no proof of your theory, right? No, the proof is in the unemployment rate. Surveyed businesses layoff workers, yet the unemployment rate goes down. Why? Because the unemployment rate surveys households...and that means the people in those households are working somewhere. Where are they working? Obviously in businesses not tracked as closely by the payroll data (ie--small businesses). Then where do you get your information from and how do you know that it's not people who've exhausted their unemployment benefits? Investors Business Daily Patrick Fearon, an economist with Eaton Vance, says the divergence between the unemployment rate and company payrolls stems from the way the figures are calculated. Payroll data are based on a survey of businesses about the number of people they employ. The jobless rate is calculated from a poll of households asking about respondents' employment status. The volatile household survey showed jobs rose 147,000 in August. Household employment is up 1.19 million so far this year, compared with the decline of 437,000 in nonfarm payrolls. The payroll measure "probably does not do a perfect job of capturing new start-up businesses and self employment. The household survey probably does a better job of that," Fearon said. He says this disparity is normal early in a recovery. Many people out of work "strike out on their own," creating their own businesses and forming start-ups with a small group. Those start-ups and home businesses generally aren't included in the payroll survey. http://www.investors.com/editorial/feature.asp?v=9/6 |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
NOYB wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened they're giving up and not bothering to report. The unemployment rate is determined by surveying households. The other figure is determined by sampling certain businesses. If you sample households, and the results tell you there were fewer people unemployed in August than in July, then why do the businesses report a cut in payrolls by 93,000? Simple...that survey ignores small business. Small business is beginning to hire in pretty large numbers. If the surveyed businesses lay off a net amount of 93,000 employees, but the unemployment rate falls, then that means these employees are being absorbed into the job market in small businesses not accounted for in the original survey. "Unemployment rate" is the key figure... "Small business is starting to hire in pretty large numbers" but since those figures aren't tracked, you have no proof of your theory, right? No, the proof is in the unemployment rate. Surveyed businesses layoff workers, yet the unemployment rate goes down. Why? Because the unemployment rate surveys households...and that means the people in those households are working somewhere. Where are they working? Obviously in businesses not tracked as closely by the payroll data (ie--small businesses). Then where do you get your information from and how do you know that it's not people who've exhausted their unemployment benefits? Investors Business Daily Patrick Fearon, an economist with Eaton Vance, says the divergence between the unemployment rate and company payrolls stems from the way the figures are calculated. Payroll data are based on a survey of businesses about the number of people they employ. The jobless rate is calculated from a poll of households asking about respondents' employment status. The volatile household survey showed jobs rose 147,000 in August. Household employment is up 1.19 million so far this year, compared with the decline of 437,000 in nonfarm payrolls. The payroll measure "probably does not do a perfect job of capturing new start-up businesses and self employment. The household survey probably does a better job of that," Fearon said. He says this disparity is normal early in a recovery. Many people out of work "strike out on their own," creating their own businesses and forming start-ups with a small group. Those start-ups and home businesses generally aren't included in the payroll survey. It's a giggle to watch you grasp at any passing straw as you try to rationalize the failures of your dumb-as-a-post president. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"NOYB" wrote in message
m... No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total man-hours needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour (ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity numbers by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You increase productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets per hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business class? And do you know for certain that your sources are measuring productivity in this manner? Perhaps in academia but not in the commercial markets. Just because it's how we were taught to think of defining productivity in school, that doesn't mean it's the measure being used. I've heard our increased productivity is indeed due to longer hours and reduced time off. I'd like to see your sources and what measures they're really using. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... It's a giggle to watch you grasp at any passing straw as you try to rationalize the failures of your dumb-as-a-post president. Grasping at straws, eh? "Household employment is up 1.19 million so far this year, compared with the decline of 437,000 in nonfarm payrolls." That's a net gain for you mathematically impaired. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"jps" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message m... No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total man-hours needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour (ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity numbers by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You increase productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets per hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business class? And do you know for certain that your sources are measuring productivity in this manner? My sources? My source is the BLS: "The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported preliminary productivity data--as measured by output per hour of all persons" ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....08072003.news Perhaps in academia but not in the commercial markets. Just because it's how we were taught to think of defining productivity in school, that doesn't mean it's the measure being used. You really are being pretty obtuse. The statistics are from BLS...and there own website tells you that they define productivity as "output per hour". I've heard our increased productivity is indeed due to longer hours and reduced time off. Longer hours won't change "output per hour". I'd like to see your sources and what measures they're really using. Go to the www.bls.gov website! |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"jps" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message m... No, the proof is in the unemployment rate. Surveyed businesses layoff workers, yet the unemployment rate goes down. Why? Because the unemployment rate surveys households...and that means the people in those households are working somewhere. Where are they working? Obviously in businesses not tracked as closely by the payroll data (ie--small businesses). And I had understood the jobless rate was determined by claims made at unemployment offices. Are you using Fox News surveys? Only when they're reporting statistics from BLS. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... It's a giggle to watch you grasp at any passing straw as you try to rationalize the failures of your dumb-as-a-post president. Grasping at straws, eh? "Household employment is up 1.19 million so far this year, compared with the decline of 437,000 in nonfarm payrolls." That's a net gain for you mathematically impaired. Uh huh. Perhaps you ought to stop sucking down so much laughing gas. This president has lost more jobs per month than any other president since Herbert Hoover. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
... "jps" wrote in message I've heard our increased productivity is indeed due to longer hours and reduced time off. (sigh) Learn the words. What you've described above is "production". Increased _production_ is due to longer hours and reduced time off. Productivity is a rate. Units per man-hour; giga-units per year; however you want to measure it is up to you, but it is a rate. JG Could also be measured by output per man hour paid. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:34:53 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Remember that when 5% mortgages go to 6%, the interest rate has gone up only 1% but the cost of money has increased by a factor of 20%....(6 being a number 120% as large as 5). Just when it seems that you do indeed *have* a brain, you post something like this. If a mortgage rate goes up from 5% to 6%, the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage goes up by a little under 12%...not 20%. Actually, you're *both* wrong--although you are closer with respect to the 15 year mortgage. Joe Parsons For a 15 year mortgage, the change is just a little bit under 7%. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"NOYB" wrote in message m... "jps" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message m... No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total man-hours needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour (ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity numbers by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You increase productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets per hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business class? And do you know for certain that your sources are measuring productivity in this manner? My sources? My source is the BLS: "The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported preliminary productivity data--as measured by output per hour of all persons" ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....08072003.news Perhaps in academia but not in the commercial markets. Just because it's how we were taught to think of defining productivity in school, that doesn't mean it's the measure being used. You really are being pretty obtuse. The statistics are from BLS...and there own website tells you that they define productivity as "output per hour". I've heard our increased productivity is indeed due to longer hours and reduced time off. Longer hours won't change "output per hour". I'd like to see your sources and what measures they're really using. Go to the www.bls.gov website! The figures easily available to calculate these figures are number of payroll hours and number (& dollar values) of units produced. What is *not* easily visible is the amount of labor outsourced by buying parts with a higher overseas labor content. It is hard *not* to buy these sub-assemblies from an offshore source. We are buying some of the finished sub-assemblies for less than we can buy the raw materials for - before we add labor. At least my company redeployed the workers instead of laying them off; many workers have not been so fortunate. If you look at our company from the outside, we have the same number of workers, but now we produce more finished goods. This makes domestic labor look more productive - but it is not. It would take a *lot* more digging to determine how much each individual worker actually produced. Mark Browne |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Just when it seems that you do indeed *have* a brain, you post something
like this. If a mortgage rate goes up from 5% to 6%, the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage goes up by a little under 12%...not 20%. Sorry, but I'm not the one who needs to see the Wizard about a brain. When money costs 6%, it *is* 120% as expensive as when it costs 5%. "So, why doesn't the payment go up by 20?" inquires NOYB. Good question, Doc. It's because your monthly payment includes principal as well as interest, and the prinicpal portion of the payment doesn't increase, only the interest. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Actually, you're *both* wrong--although you are closer with respect to the 15
year mortgage. Joe Parsons Actually we're both right, that is if NOYB check his amortization chart before typing away. We are speaking about two completely different concepts, however. I didn't ever say the monthly payment went up 20%, just that 6% money is 120% the cost of 5% money. Math was never my strongest subject, but I would invite anybody to show me where 5 X 1.2 doesn't equal 6. NOYB said I lacked a brain because the monthly payment doesn't go up 20% at the higher rate. No, it doesn't. Part of the money paid back each month reduces the principal balance. I thought the guys on the right were supposed to be such financial geniuses! I guess the tax cuts should have been the first clue. :-) |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
|
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
$100,000 mortgage at 5% for 30 years is $536.83 per month.
$100,000 mortgage at 6% for 30 years is $599.55 per month. The mortgage payment at 6% is 11.683% more than the payment at 5%. How am I wrong? "Joe Parsons" wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:34:53 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Remember that when 5% mortgages go to 6%, the interest rate has gone up only 1% but the cost of money has increased by a factor of 20%....(6 being a number 120% as large as 5). Just when it seems that you do indeed *have* a brain, you post something like this. If a mortgage rate goes up from 5% to 6%, the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage goes up by a little under 12%...not 20%. Actually, you're *both* wrong--although you are closer with respect to the 15 year mortgage. Joe Parsons For a 15 year mortgage, the change is just a little bit under 7%. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com