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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (177232)	3/6/2004 1:21:10 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 186894

We will never see that kind of panic buying of tech stuff as we saw in 98-99 as the y2k and internet bubble forces that propelled the demand for things tech to unbelievable and perhaps unsustainable levels will never occur again. But we do have steady solid measured growth with low inflation and that is what we have sought for centuries. So why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth. I am sure you are nicely employed and doing very well. Don't worry about the unknown face that is claimed not to have a job who may in fact have three off the books. The only ones losing in this economy are union shops which are notoriously unproductive. Oddly enough the unions,the media and Dems all sleep in the same bed. JFD

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (177232)	3/6/2004 4:18:38 PM
From: Nine_USA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mr. Dowd, <<They make it seem like there is no recovery underway and things have never been so bad. As a matter of fact we are at 5.6% unemployment and except for those bubble years we have never had it so good I think the real problem is that people are looking for clarity and nobody is really providing it. What you say above is true..... except.....>> Did you bother to look up the facts, or were you just giving us your wishful thinking? 1) U.S. unemployment rates were at or below the cuurent rate in 13 out of the 39 years from 1959 to 1997. 2) Check out the golden years of President Johnson when rates of 4.5 to 5.2 prevailled. 3) Also check out the dismal performance of the President Reagan years when rates were over 7.0 percent in 7 of his 8 years. 4) And take a gander at the unemployment rates for Western Europe, Japan & Australia. Johson & Clinton were the champion JOB creators. Reagan and Bush Jr. were looking after the nest eggs of the top 2-3% of the population. ____________________________________________________________________ from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Table 2. Civilian Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment, 1959-2002--Continued United Nether- United Year States Canada Australia Japan France Germany Italy lands Sweden Kingdom (1) (2) (1) (3) Unemployment Rate (percent) As published by originating country (9) 1959 5.5 6.0 2.1(8) 2.2 1.6 2.6 7.0 1.5 1.7(4) 2.2 1960 5.5(5) 7.0 1.6(8) 1.7 1.5 1.3 5.6 0.9 1.7(4) 1.6 1961 6.7 7.2 3.0(8) 1.4 1.3 0.8 5.1 0.6 1.5 1.5 1962 5.5(5) 5.9 2.9(8) 1.3 1.5 0.7 4.5 0.6 1.5 2.0 1963 5.7 5.5 2.3(8) 1.3 1.6 0.8 3.9 0.7 1.7 2.4 1964 5.2 4.7 1.4 1.1 1.3 0.8 4.3 0.6 1.6 1.8 1965 4.5 3.9 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.7 5.4 0.7 1.2 1.5 1966 3.8 3.4(5) 1.6 1.3 1.6 0.7 5.9 1.0 1.6 1.5 1967 3.8 3.8 1.9 1.3 2.2 2.1 5.4 2.0 2.1 2.3 1968 3.6 4.5 1.8 1.2 2.7(5) 1.5 5.7 1.8 2.2 2.5 1969 3.5 4.4 1.8 1.1 2.3 0.9 5.7 1.3 1.9 2.5 1970 4.9 5.7 1.6 1.1 2.5 0.7 5.4 1.1 1.5 2.6 1971 5.9 6.2 1.9 1.2 2.7 0.8 5.4 1.6 2.5 2.6 1972 5.6(5) 6.2 2.6 1.4 2.8 1.1 6.4 2.8 2.7 2.9 1973 4.9(5) 5.5 2.3 1.3 2.7 1.2 6.4 2.8 2.5 2.0 1974 5.6 5.3 2.7 1.4 2.9 2.6 5.4 3.5 2.0 2.0 1975 8.5 6.9 4.9 1.9 4.2 4.7 5.9 5.0(5) 1.6 3.1 1976 7.7 7.0(5) 4.8 2.0 4.6 4.6 6.7 5.3 1.6 4.2 1977 7.1 8.0 5.6 2.0 5.2 4.5 7.2 5.1 1.8 4.4 1978 6.1(5) 8.3 6.3 2.2 5.4 4.3 7.2 5.1 2.2 4.3 1979 5.8 7.5 6.3 2.1 6.0 3.8 7.7 5.1 2.1 4.0 1980 7.1 7.5 6.1 2.0 6.4 3.8 7.6 5.9 2.0 5.1 1981 7.6 7.6 5.8 2.2 7.6 5.5 8.4 9.1 2.5 8.1 1982 9.7 11.0 7.2 2.4 8.2 7.5 8.6 12.6 3.1 9.5 1983 9.6 11.9 10.0 2.6 8.5 9.1 9.4 17.0 3.5 10.5 1984 7.5 11.3 9.0 2.7 10.0 9.1 10.1 17.3 3.1 11.9(5) 1985 7.2 10.7 8.3 2.6 10.3 9.3 10.3 15.9 2.8 11.3 1986 7.0(5) 9.6 8.1 2.8 10.4 9.0 11.1(5) 14.7 2.7(5) 11.3 1987 6.2 8.8 7.9(5) 2.8 10.5 8.9 12.0 13.9 2.1(5) 10.8 1988 5.5 7.8 7.0 2.5 10.0 8.7 12.0 6.5(5) 1.8 8.8 1989 5.3 7.5 6.0 2.3 9.4 7.9 12.0 5.8 1.5 7.3 1990 5.6(5) 8.1 6.7 2.1 8.9 7.2 11.0 5.0 1.7 6.9 1991 6.8 10.3 9.3 2.1 9.4 7.3(5) 10.9(5) 5.4 3.0 8.4 1992 7.5 11.2 10.5 2.2 10.3 8.5 11.5 5.3 5.3 9.8(5) 1993 6.9 11.4 10.6 2.5 11.6 9.8 10.1(5) 6.5 8.2 10.5 1994 6.1(5) 10.4 9.4 2.9 12.1 10.6 11.1 7.5 8.0 9.8 1995 5.6 9.4 8.2 3.2 11.4 10.4 11.6 7.0 7.7 8.8 1996 5.4 9.6 8.2 3.4 12.1 11.5 11.6 6.6 8.1 8.3 1997 4.9(5) 9.1 8.3 3.4 12.1 12.7 11.7 5.5 8.0 7.2 1998 4.5(5) 8.3 7.7 4.1 11.5 12.3 11.8 4.1 6.5 6.2 1999 4.2(5) 7.6 7.0 4.7 10.8 11.7 11.4 3.1 5.6 6.1 2000 4.0(5) 6.8 6.3 4.7 9.5 10.7 10.6 2.6 4.7 5.6 2001 4.7 7.2 6.7 5.0 8.7(5) 10.3 9.5 2.0 4.0 4.9 2002 5.8 7.7 6.3 5.4 9.0 10.8 9.0 2.3 4.0 5.2 Continued on the following page. 16 Table 2. Civilian Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment, 1959-2002--Continued Footnotes: NA = Not available. (1) Published and adjusted data are identical. (2) Published and adjusted data are identical from 1966 to 1975. There is a break in the "as published" series for Canada as of 1966, resulting from sampling changes and a change in the lower age limit from 14 to 15 years. The effect was to reduce the "as published" unemployment rate by about 0.4 percentage point. The adjusted series for Canada prior to 1966 are based on BLS estimates and do not show a break in series. (3) Germany (unified) for 1991 onward. Prior to 1991, data relate to the former West Germany. (4) The Swedish labor force survey was initiated in 1961. The published data for 1959-1960 are estimates made by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (5) Break in series. See section on breaks in the Country Notes on pages 3-7 for more information. (6) Including military personnel for Japan, Germany, Italy, and Sweden. "As published" labor force shown for France and the Netherlands cannot be derived by adding the "as published" employment and the "as published" unemployment because labor force is estimated by the OECD using labor force survey sources, whereas unemployment is estimated by national statistical agencies with statistics from a variety of sources, including those of the registered unemployed. For other countries, subtotals may not add to totals because of rounding. (7) For the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, and Sweden, unemployment as recorded by labor force surveys; for France, annual estimates of unemployment; for Germany, the registered unemployed; for the Netherlands, a combination of registered unemployed and unemployment as recorded by labor force surveys since 1988; for previous years, the registered unemployed; and for the United Kingdom, unemployment as recorded by labor force surveys since 1984; for previous years, registered claimants for unemployment benefits. (8) The Australian labor force survey was initiated in 1964. Unemployment rates for 1959-1963 are estimates made by an Australian researcher. (9) For the United States, Canada, Australia, and France, unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor force; for Japan, Italy, and Sweden, unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor force plus career military personnel; for Germany, registered unemployed as a percent of civilian employed wage and salary workers plus the unemployed; for the Netherlands, national estimates of the unemployed as a percent of the total labor force since 1988; for previous years, registered unemployed as a percent of wage and salary workers plus the unemployed; for the United Kingdom, unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor force plus military personnel since 1984; for previous years, registered claimants for unemployment benefits as a percent of the civilian labor force plus military personnel. "As published" unemployment rates shown for Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom cannot be derived by dividing the "as published" unemployment by the "as published" labor force because of these differences in the definition of the national unemployment rate. 17