Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (131564)	9/20/2001 12:16:06 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Idiot, I never claimed to have a monopoly on facts. I simply asked you for the basis for your contention. Yes, the pool of people actually looking for work changes depending on whether they have resources that allow them to NOT look. But also, one's desire to look for work can be rather independent of one's resources, depending instead on demand for workers and the prospects of actually finding work. Let me restate so you can understand - the likelihood of actually finding a job at attractive pay (greater demand) influences one's decision as to whether to look for work (stimulates supply). That's a big part of how we had such huge job growth with very low unemployment for so long without inflationary pressures - the labor pool grew. Demand isn't exactly stimulating supply now, though. Now, what do we know to be fact? Only that the method of calculating the unemployment rate has not changed and that the rate has been rising (from very low levels). If the official rate consistently understates the pool of unemployed (counting those who could work even if they aren't looking), then it is disingenuous to raise alarm over the difference between the two, as you have done, instead of the trend in either one alone. We also have expectations, most of us expecting the rate to continue rising for at least a few months. Anything beyond that is speculation. You are speculating, for example, that some 30% of the people without jobs that really want jobs won't admit it to surveyors. You are also speculating that large numbers of people who are collecting unemployment, for which they must swear to be looking for work, are telling surveyors they are NOT looking. Lastly, you are speculating that large numbers of those not working, who were recently laid off from jobs, will suddenly decide that they should rejoin the labor pool, driving the unemployment rate up to your "real" level. Why? Because they lost money in the stock market? Gee, do you really think a large number of those laid off in the last six months thought until now that they could just live fat off their portfolios? Get real.

To: GST who wrote (131564)	9/20/2001 7:39:56 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

<< Unemployment numbers come from surveys where people are NOT asked if they are unemployed, they are asked if they are "looking for work". If they are not looking for work, then they are not unemployed -- even if they just got fired or laid off. >> Or if they have been homeless, drunk and careless for 3 years. 3% or 3.5% or so is the critical bottom where economists see the chronically unemployed who simply cannot keep a job no matter what the economy is doing. It's like the supervoter surveys. When political polls are done they look up all the people who have voted consistently in recent years, then they randomly select from among these people to ask them who they plan to vote for. After all, who gives a flying doo-doo about non-voters when it comes to predicting election results? I know a guy who hired a woman to do office work and clerical type work for his small co. After three weeks, she told him she always hated doing paperwork, and that was why she was quitting.