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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: microhoogle! who wrote (438588)	8/5/2003 7:11:31 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Our criminals can't file for unemployment insurance but % wise that is a very few people.

To: microhoogle! who wrote (438588)	8/5/2003 7:47:51 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Compounding the unemployment problem have been an unheard of four (possibly five) unemployment extensions since the current administration crisis. People are holding on for jobs that aren't there and never will be. During Bush's 34 months, 2.5 million manufacturing have gone overseas never to return. This is due to corporate tax break incentives paid by Americans whom they don't hire!!! What will happen to this country? We should be nice to Canadians and Mexicans before the country is divvied up as Canerica and Amexico.

To: microhoogle! who wrote (438588)	8/5/2003 9:00:04 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 769667

Many of the unemployed have gone back to their countries. They are not counted in the unemployment figures. Many of the unemployed have exhausted their benefits. They are not counted either. The following article excerpt from NY Post (not a liberal publication by any stretch) makes the point very well (it's actually from 2 years ago when the unemployment rate was supposedly 4.3%, so you can extrapolate from there) : DO OFFICIAL JOBS NUMBERS GROSSLY UNDERSTATE UNEMPLOYMENT? April 10, 2001 By JOHN CRUDELE - business news - - THE loss of 86,000 jobs in March 2001 was startling to America. But here's the part that's even more shocking - the number of jobs that disappeared from our economy last month was actually much larger. Here's the official line. The Labor Department announced last Friday that 86,000 jobs disappeared last month and that the nation's unemployment rate rose 0.1 to 4.3 percent. That was, we were told by the government, the biggest decline in jobs since 129,000 positions were eliminated in November of 1991. Could that 86,000 number actually be correct? Didn't dozens of companies publicly announce job cuts last month that amounted to well over 86,000? And aren't there probably thousands of other companies - those that don't issue press releases - that cut back on the number of workers? I'll tell you the punch line of this column right now: The government's employment numbers for March are nonsense. There were probably more than 220,000 jobs lost in March. What the government didn't tell people on Friday was that - even as its computers estimate a loss of 86,000 positions - it was still adding 145,000 fictitious jobs to its tally. Why? Because Washington assumes companies that it didn't reach in the survey are adding people to their workforce. Without those additional 145,000 jobs, the loss of positions in March would have been 231,000. But the situation could actually be even worse than that. As I said, the 140,000 bias-factor jobs are added because Washington assumes small companies around the country that aren't surveyed are adding jobs. Now that the economy is slowing rapidly, perhaps those same invisible companies are laying off workers. What if the bias factor should be negative? What if 140,000 jobs were cut by these invisible small companies instead of added? Then the numbers would really add up. There would then be the 86,000 jobs that were officially reported lost. Plus, you wouldn't have the additional 140,000 jobs that the government assumes were created. And you'd have the 140,000 jobs that were cut by small companies out of the government's statistical reach. What's that: 86,000, plus 140,000, plus another 140,000. If you calculate the figures the less politically beneficial way you'd come up with a loss of 366,000 jobs in March alone. Is my figure accurate? It certainly feels right. And my guess about what small companies are doing is as good as the government's. There's more. The unemployment rate only rose 0.1 percent. And the 4.3 percent rate is still amazingly low and a small rise is certainly nothing to worry about. That 4.3 percent, however, doesn't include people who are out of work and who have become too discouraged to keep looking for a job. If discouraged workers are counted as unemployed, the nation's jobless rate jumps to 7.6 percent. If you've been out of work for a year and have given up looking you don't even show up in the 7.6 percent figure. If those long-term discouraged workers are counted, the nation's unemployment rate jumps to nearly 10 percent. So is the real unemployment figure 4.3 percent or 10 percent? Is the economy just softening or is it turning to mush? There's another government statistic that crosschecks the numbers I mentioned above. Each month the Labor Department surveys households to determine who is working. This survey shows a lot more weakness than the one that questions companies. In February this poll showed a loss of 184,000 jobs. And in March, households reported losing another 35,000. That's a total of 219,000 jobs lost in the past two months. That sounds more realistic, doesn't it?