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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (176994)	2/10/2004 3:02:58 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I don't think that's accurate at all. On the contrary, it is very accurate. The jobs numbers are revised for years to come. Look at the recovery in the early 90s. Eventually, the Labor Dept.'s revision process, which can take years, catches up to reality. But the miss can be enormous. In the second year of recovery from the 1990-91 recession, for example, payrolls were said to have increased by just 300,000. After more complete information came in, especially from state records and tax reports, the data had been revised to show that 1.6 million jobs were added. Even by the third year of that recovery -- the point the U.S. economy is at in this one -- job growth was originally estimated at 2.2 million. Today, the revised number stands at 3.2 million. sg.biz.yahoo.com

To: GVTucker who wrote (176994)	2/10/2004 3:07:09 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

OT Well, based on my own anecdotal evidence I think there could be some truth to the "self employment" skewing the UI claims though. I'm thinking that since the job loss is high wage, people are just letting their UI run out and choosing to persue passive investment interests vs. the alternative of running out and taking that job at Walmart. I suspect many of the permanently unemployed really are self employed at this point, but the problem is, this is not a decision that I would call entirely "by choice"- you can call it a choice and be technically accurate but that leaves off that the choice is really between day trading and minimum wage with no benefits... not a "real job" vs. self employment which is what we had in the 90s.