Re: For Trucker

Negloid" <negloid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123223040.937492.49130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The Trucker wrote:
>> Negloid" <negloid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1123182161.620609.87480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > jrw wrote:
>> >> By her yardstick, there may be as many as 5.1m Americans
>> >> who do not appear in the unemployment rolls, but who might rejoin the
>> >> job queue if work were more forthcoming. If so, the "true"
>> >> unemployment rate could be over 8%, not 5%; the true number of jobless
>> >> 12.6m, not 7.5m.
>> >
>> > It's impossible to know exactly why some people are not in the work
>> > force. People such as Coburn, ever the pessimist when a "Repugnican"
>> > is in charge, will instantly attribute their decisions to their
>> > inability to find work or course. The unemployment rate has remained
>> > very low, even at its highest points, since it hit 3.9% in 2000.
>>
>> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1ECO/is_2002_Sept/ai_93974717
>>
>> According to this "data", the unemployment rate was 7.5%
>> in 1992 and dropped to 4.0 before Pinocchio took over.
>> It then rose to 6% by April of 2002.
>>
>> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/18595359.pdf
>>
>> And this "data" says it was 5.8% for all of 2002 and then
>> reached a high for all of 2003 at 6%. Then it fell in
>> 2004 and 2005 and in May was 5.1%
>>
>> So where do you get 3.1% ????
>
> Coburn, I wrote 3.9%, not 3.1%.

Yep. You did and that is very close to the actual 4%.
I simply screwed up and read it as 3.1. Have no idea
why. But I apoloogize for any offense.

> Also, I wrote 2000, not 2002, 2003,
> 2004, or 2005. Finally, you are most likely looking at annual data,
> not monthly data. The unemployment rate reached 3.9% in the last 4
> months of 2000.

The paragraph SEEMED to try to convey that the
unemployment statistics have been very low for the
entire span of the Pinocchio regime. As illustrated
by the links I provided, that has not been true. The
thing about uneployment is that people must have
jobs to survive. They are forced to take low wages
or nothing. Those not unemployed are a lot worse
off than before. With the cost of labor well controled
the Pugs count this as productivity and a lack of
inflation.

>> > I have always attributed recent
>> > labor force participation rates to the unique situation we were in in
>> > the late '90s. At that time, even the most marginal workers were being
>> > hired because the unemployment rate was so low.
>>
>> Good grief!!! You mean those people opened the
>> paper and saw a big news story that told them that
>> the unemployment rate was low and that is what
>> _caused_ them to go out and get a job???? They
>> wanted to be part of the "in" crowd, did they.
>> Maybe,,,,, JUUUUUUUST maybe, they saw that
>> they would actually get _paid_ for doing the work
>> and _that_ is what prompted them to seek a job.
>
> That is exactly what happened, though I would probably describe it with
> a little less emotion, cynicism, and sarcasm.
>
>> > Since then, a lot of
>> > people did exit the labor force. They were marginal *workers* after
>> > all. They hadn't completed their education or they were near
>> > retirement or they were only attracted in the first place by promises
>> > of stock options, etc..
>>
>> The same Repugnican prancing pig *** as always:
>> "Unemployment is the result of personal failure on
>> the part of the workers".
>
> You don't actually read what people write before you post.

Well, I misresd the 3.9 as 3.1, but I did not misread the
"marginal worker" claim.

> I never
> wrote anything about personal failures. Perhaps you need to figure out
> what I mean by "marginal worker".

Even better it might be good for you to tell us what
you mean.

> Are you more interested in what I
> meant, or are you most interested in attacking what I wrote regardless?

So what does "marginal worker" mean to you?

>> The fact that we brought
>> in a bunch of low wage Indians and Mexican
>> illegals has NOTHING to do with it.
>>
>> > But this author did bring up an interesting fact. Since WWII, the
>> > women's labor force participation rate had risen, almost uninterrupted,
>> > through the late 1990's. Through each and every recession, the growth
>> > in this rate just progressed up and up and up, until recently.
>> > (Conversely, it is interesting to note that the men's labor force
>> > participation rate has steadily declined since WWII, from the high 80's
>> > to the low 70's percentages.) Maybe the women's lib movement has
>> > matured, and there really will not be any more growth in this
>> > demographic.
>> >
>> > Go here for easily-searched stats on labor force participation:
>> > http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm
>> >
>> > Another thing not really mentioned in the article (well, parhaps
>> > touched on) is the drastic reduction in labor force participation among
>> > the young. In the late 1990's, around 52% of teenages (16-19) were in
>> > the labor force. Last month, 43.9%. This is the lowest it has been
>> > since 1965. That represents a loss of well over 1 million members of
>> > the labor force (which generally uses the age range of 16+). I'm not
>> > sure how worked-up I would get about alleged labor market troubles just
>> > because out-of-work 16-year-olds are not looking for jobs. In fact, it
>> > begs the question, just how many people in that age range *can* drop
>> > out of the labor force?
>>
>> It depends on how much their daddy makes and it
>> depends on whether they are illegal or not.
>
> I'm sure that illegal immigrants have played their part in the numbers,
> though not necessarily only as you believe.

As wages at the bottom fall, then so to do all wages
not based on political privilege. And as wages fall
people find that it costs them more to work then it
does to just stay home.

>> > If we look at the labor force participation rate for women and men, 20
>> > and older rather than 16 and older, then the labor force participation
>> > rate for men dropped 0.7% from June 2000 through June 2005. For women
>> > 20 and over, it dropped 0.5% over the same time period. If the
>> > participation rates had held steady for both, there would be 1.25
>> > million more people in the labor force, aged 20+. Now perform the same
>> > calculations on the 16+ labor force rather than 20+ labor force and
>> > that 1.25 million becomes 2.49 million.
>>
>> > Half of the drop in the labor force participation rate was caused by
>> > reduced participation by teenagers. I wonder what the numbers would
>> > look like if we upped the age to 22+, so that we captured most people
>> > in their post-high school as well as post-college years...
>>
>>
>> GEE!!! Why don't we just count Repugnican males between
>> 25 and 45 and see how that works. You know... The
>> Pinocchio *** kissers.
>>
>> Your suggestions speak volumes on the fact
>> of your Repugnican apologist manipulation
>> of data to simply "leave out" the stuff that is
>> not "in line" with your religious perspective.
>
> I "left out" nothing. I *pointed out* that half of the drop in the
> labor force participation rate occured because 16- to 19-year-olds
> dropped out of the labor force in larger numbers. Do you dispute that
> fact, or claim that it is meaningless?

But you suggest that we leave out all sorts of data so as
to make the numbers look good.

>> I too have a religious perspective. But I don't
>> manipulate the "data" around whatever
>> conclusion I have already adopted.
>
> There was a major drop in labor force participation amongst teenagers
> over the past few years. That is a fact. Do you not see the
> difference between a 40-year-old dropping out of the labor force and a
> 16-year-old not entering the labor force?

I see the difference between teenagers working at Mickey D.
and old people working at Mickey D. The oldsters have to
work if they want other than dog food for dinner. There are
also those that were in technology that now work at Mickey
D. All of it caused by tax breaks for the rich, more military
spending, H1B, illegal immigration and all the other Repugnican
rent maximization pig crap. As the GDP goes up so too does
the wealth gap and the number of people sleeping under a
bridge.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org

"



.

Loading