Here's your "jobless recovery"

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-07 05:23pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/ ... 2425.shtml

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-07 05:30pm

Shhh, don't tell Iceberg this!

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-11-07 05:37pm

Goddammit, even with my good job, I STILL don't make what the average american makes. FUCK ME WITH A CHAINSAW!

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-11-07 05:56pm

Fuck you, Shep. I've been trying for six months to find a job and I still don't have one. Your head is so far up your ass you've lapped yourself.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-11-07 06:03pm

Job loss will skyrocket again, just like it has for the past few years

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-07 06:13pm

Iceberg wrote:Fuck you, Shep. I've been trying for six months to find a job and I still don't have one. Your head is so far up your ass you've lapped yourself.

Blow me. I've been trying to find a job for longer than that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-07 06:13pm

Iceberg wrote:Fuck you, Shep. I've been trying for six months to find a job and I still don't have one. Your head is so far up your ass you've lapped yourself.

Sorry, I just can't resist:

Iceberg wrote:*YAWN*

Learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence, then get back to me.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-07 06:13pm

Durran Korr wrote: Sorry, I just can't resist:

Iceberg wrote:*YAWN*

Learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence, then get back to me.

LOL

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-11-07 07:58pm

Hamel wrote:Job loss will skyrocket again, just like it has for the past few years

Your proof of this assertion being..........?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-07 09:12pm

Sorry, I couldn't resist:

U.S. companies set 172,000 job cuts last month, the highest in a year, outplacement firm says

Feeling better Iceberg?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-07 09:22pm

Who to trust, who to trust...

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-11-08 11:56am

Durran Korr wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Fuck you, Shep. I've been trying for six months to find a job and I still don't have one. Your head is so far up your ass you've lapped yourself.
Sorry, I just can't resist:

Iceberg wrote:*YAWN*

Learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence, then get back to me.

holy fuck!

you sir are an asshole. You're my kind of asshole, but an asshole nonetheless!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-08 12:02pm

Yeah...I'm pretty sure I've got something nasty coming for that one, eventually.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-11-08 12:38pm

Oh and speaking of statistical evidence, lets just make sure everyone knows that the diference between the enemployemnt level at the peak of the boom (3.9%) and the peak of the recession (6.4%) is 2.5%

source

so all of this bullshit "THE SKY IS FALLING THERE ARE NO JOBS!" is a perfect example of what iceberg calls 'the difference between anecdotal and statistical evidence"

currently the unemployment rate is 6%. as the graph below (Los Angeles Times May 6, 2000) over the past 30 years unemployement has been below this rate for appx 11 of those years. So, accorfing to the information provided the current unemployment level is fairly good, relatively speaking.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-08 03:05pm

currently the unemployment rate is 6%. as the graph below (Los Angeles Times May 6, 2000) over the past 30 years unemployement has been below this rate for appx 11 of those years. So, accorfing to the information provided the current unemployment level is fairly good, relatively speaking.

Of course it's pretty good relative to the average. It's only the dim-bulbs that have forgotten prosperity is not the default economic state; even worse they've forgotten that artifically created booms go bust. While it certainly sucks (I can't find a job damn it!) for those unemployed it's only a recession compared to the "dot bomb boom".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-08 03:25pm

A better question would be what effect this will have in the future, since it's being paid for with borrowed money. The negative impact of deficit spending is never felt immediately, so there is always a short-term positive effect of such financially irresponsible behaviour.

Just a reminder that unemployment is not the only kind of "lagging indicator" of an economy.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-11-08 07:30pm

Durran Korr wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/ ... 2425.shtml

--You're an idiot!
-The U.S. economy needs to add 150k jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.
-That doesn't include replacing all the jobs lost in the recession.
-The "recovery" is actually unusual in that the their has been such a long and large lag in job recovery (factoid from the The News Hour).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-08 07:36pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/ ... 2425.shtml
--You're an idiot!
-The U.S. economy needs to add 150k jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.
-That doesn't include replacing all the jobs lost in the recession.
-The "recovery" is actually unusual in that the their has been such a long and large lag in job recovery (factoid from the The News Hour).

Just because the job market isn't where it needs to be doesn't negate the fact that there has been improvement, speedy.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-08 08:02pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/ ... 2425.shtml
--You're an idiot!
-The U.S. economy needs to add 150k jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.
-That doesn't include replacing all the jobs lost in the recession.
-The "recovery" is actually unusual in that the their has been such a long and large lag in job recovery (factoid from the The News Hour).

Would you rather we were still losing jobs? Naturally it's going to take a while before things get back to normal but the fact is this is not a jobless recovery as so many have been eager to declare.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-08 08:09pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/ ... 2425.shtml
--You're an idiot!
-The U.S. economy needs to add 150k jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.
-That doesn't include replacing all the jobs lost in the recession.
-The "recovery" is actually unusual in that the their has been such a long and large lag in job recovery (factoid from the The News Hour).
Just because the job market isn't where it needs to be doesn't negate the fact that there has been improvement, speedy.

At the risk of being the smartass, if it's not where it needs to be, that's not really much of an improvement. More a 'not sucking as much'.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-08 08:17pm

So if a company is making a loss, doubles it's earnings but is still making a loss, that's not an improvement?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-11-08 08:19pm

Obviously Nitram's going to bitch every which way until he has a job. Regardless if he bitched before that it was a "jobless recovery" and then when proved wrong, backpeddles to "not enough."

Quite frankly I don't know what they expect. Everyone knew this wasn't going to be overnight, and they don't want to say they were wrong.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-08 08:19pm

Durran Korr wrote:So if a company is making a loss, doubles it's earnings but is still making a loss, that's not an improvement?

Good point. I was assuming from your statement 'It's not where it needs to be' to mean that the recovery isn't in sectors that actually have people looknig for work, not that 'it's below the needed level'.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-11-08 08:21pm

SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:So if a company is making a loss, doubles it's earnings but is still making a loss, that's not an improvement?
Good point. I was assuming from your statement 'It's not where it needs to be' to mean that the recovery isn't in sectors that actually have people looknig for work, not that 'it's below the needed level'.

Conceded.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-08 08:23pm

I wouldn't get too cocky yet. This could very well go to shit next month (although, I would call that unlikely at this point).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Here's your "jobless recovery"

Here's your "jobless recovery"

Re: Here's your "jobless recovery"

Re: Here's your "jobless recovery"

Re: Here's your "jobless recovery"

Re: Here's your "jobless recovery"