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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (513051)	12/19/2003 1:33:42 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The last few weeks have brought headlines to help sustain the fantasy. Unemployment numbers have been edging down. The Detroit Free Press explains that the decrease, in their area anyway, was a result of taking people off the list who had not been able to find a job. They are no longer merely jobless, it would seem; they no longer exist. Well, that IS a fantasy. Haven't looked up Detroit area numbers, but nationally, the number of people in the civilian labor force (working or looking for work) ROSE in November by 484k while the numbers "not in labor force" (not employed and no longer looking) FELL by 244k. The other big reduction in the jobless numbers has come from "restaurant hiring," in which well-paid computer engineers take jobs as busboys while they wait for the 'recovery' to gather itself together. Another fantasy, which you seem to share with Dizzie, BTW. The November non-farm payrolls numbers show that restaurants and bars added 7800 jobs, but the big numbers came in relatively high-paying sectors such as construction (10k), professional and business services (20k), and education and health services (34k). They may wash a lot of dishes before the recovery actually arrives. Economist Joseph Schumpeter, quoted by Marc Faber, explains why: Yet another fantasy - that is that you have a clue what Schumpeter was talking about. He was clearly arguing AGAINST government intervention to "artificially" stimulate to economy and FOR letting economic cycles run their course to wash out "maladjustments" rather than adding new ones. Boy, would you and Dizzie be pissed if Bush took that advice! You need to join Dizzie and AmSpin in the remedial Econ class.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (513051)	12/19/2003 9:43:55 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Buddy, The Detroit Free Press is full of it. Indeed, it is true that some of the longterm unemployed were not counted as unemployed members of the workforce, but in a separate category - people not in the workforce, but would like a job (a subset being those who are discouraged). The number of these discouraged and longterm unemployed people, seem to be very difficult to reduce even in the BEST of times. In November, the number of people out of the workforce (but would like a job) were 4.2 million people. Last November, the number was 4.4 million people. BUT if you look at a similar period in the Clinton Administration (34 months post inauguration) - November 1995, 5.1 million Americans were not considered members of the workforce, but indicated that they wanted a job. Even in the last full month of the Clinton Administration, 4.2 million people were members of this group. Incredibly, at the peak of the Internet/financial/y2k bubble (Dec 1999) - over 4 million people were not counted as members of the workforce, but indicated they wanted a job (and over a million of these were "discouraged" job seekers)! If you counted these people as unemployed members of the workforce, yes the unemployement rate would increase. Of course, it would also mean that President Clinton, never had a 3.9 or 4% unemployment rate, but more like 6 to 7%.