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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (271738)	2/3/2006 5:28:10 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576350

"You're taking two different data points with nebulous bases for reference." I think you will find all the data sources to the national labor statistics, So why are the bases nebulous? "That figure of 61K is well above your table napkin calculation of 20K." Um, Bush was in office prior to late 2003, so why are you using that as you baseline? That figure of 61k does not count the jobs lost from 2001 through 2003. There is a reason why Cheney talked about job growth from May, 2003. Jobs were lost hand over fist prior to that point and it took a long time to replace them. Much less account for population growth. Oh, I get it. You are ignoring the job loss and pretending we were at full employment from late 2003. I suppose the figures look better that way, but it seems a little disingenuous. "You can't tell me that "employment rates" count those who are unemployed but not actively seeking work as "employed."" No. They just aren't counted at all. It is a simple enough concept, albeit one that makes the whole idea of counting the "unemployment rate" sort of weird... Ok, Tench, you can believe anything you want. But the facts are out there. The economic theory behind it is pretty simple. If you choose to believe something else, that is fine.