Re: More Bad News On The Jobs Front

From: Graphic Queen (xxx_at_xxx.com)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:07:47 GMT

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:30:07 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:21:37 -0500, Strider <strider@NOSPAMusit.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:03:41 GMT, Gunner <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:15:18 GMT, Moderate Mammal
>>>><BunnERabbit@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050207_dollar.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>February 07, 2005
>>>>>
>>>>>More Bad News On The Jobs Front
>>>>>By Paul Craig Roberts
>>>>
>>>>Oddly enough...that doesnt appear to be the case.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20050107
>>>>
>>>>Employment growing, but labor slack remains
>>>>
>>>>The nation’s payrolls increased by 146,000 last month, and the
>>>>unemployment rate fell to 5.2%, its lowest level since September 2001,
>>>>according to today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
>>>>
>>>>The decline in the unemployment rate was, however, due to a fall in
>>>>the labor force participation rate (LFPR) from 66.0% to 65.8%, the
>>>>lowest LFPR since May 1988 and 1.5 percentage points below its most
>>>>recent peak in April 2000.
>>>>
>>>>Given today’s adult population, this translates into 3.4 million fewer
>>>>persons in the job market. Since only active jobseekers are counted
>>>>in the official unemployment rate, this long slide in the LFPR has
>>>>artificially depressed the jobless rate, which would be higher if some
>>>>of those who left the job market were actively looking for work.
>>>>
>>>>As of last month, payroll levels have finally surpassed their
>>>>pre-recession peak. In February 2001—the month before the recession
>>>>was declared to have begun—payrolls stood at 132,546,000. Thanks in
>>>>part to revisions which added 161,000 to the December job count,
>>>>payrolls stood at 132,573,000 last month, 27,000 jobs above the last
>>>>peak. (Note, however, that this is due to the growth of government
>>>>employment; private sector employment remains 703,000 jobs below its
>>>>pre-recession level).
>>>>
>>>>As shown in the chart, this is the longest slump of this sort on
>>>>record. On average, it has taken 21 months to surpass the prior
>>>>employment peak after a recession. In this case it took 46 months.*
>>>>As the chart reveals, the employment peak of the early 1990s jobless
>>>>recovery was regained in 31 months, more than a year sooner compared
>>>>to the current case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
>>>>
>>>>Gunner
>>>
>>>I wonder how billions of dollars in computer equipment and tech
>>>support due to the Y2K upgrades influenced the "Clinton boom" of the
>>>'90's. After all, it was the tech sector that flopped after 1/1/2000.
>>>
>>>Strider
>>
>>
>> Excellent question. Indeed
>
>That is such a stupid question I have to wonder if you guys have got Mad
>Cow Disease and it's eaten holes in your brains.

if you are asking about Gunner, yes he has very little brain and
proves it with his posts. I kill filed him again along with his sister
Sue.-
>
>The Tech Sector flopped because of the unrealistic expectations of
>investors.
>
>The Tech Sector boom during the Clinton Years was because of the massive
> amounts of cash plowed into Everything InterNet, especially the
>hardware such as routers, switches, hubs, and especially harddrives.
>Hell, look at the amount of city infrastructure dug up, nationwide, for
>fiber. There's fiber all over the damn place now. All that it needs is
>for someone to light it and modulate the light. Just think of the amount
>of money paid out just to lay the fiber and you get some idea of the
>fallout and trickle-down effects. Of course, the fiber was grossly
>oversupplied and people are still licking their investment wounds form
>thinking they were investing in a cornered market when actually they
>overpaid to be part of an oversupply.
>
>You guys ought to start checking your facts before you start trotting
>out Bizarre Conspiracy Theories.