Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[59millionmorons]

1. wow

doesnt even cover the dropoff rate.

[kikiek]

2. Last night they thought it would be 150,000. Even worse.

It will be adjusted in a month or so to 112. Pretty bad. See how they spin it.

[leftchick]

4. MSRNC is saying this is good news!

better numbers than expected! :eyes:

[kikiek]

5. It isn't. Doesn't even keep up with labor entering job market.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. I'd Wait Until Later This Month For Any Adjustments

Wait until the hiring index is released around the 18th or 19th of this month.

This number will likely be adjusted downward. The current trends don't indicate this high a number, but i did use the hiring index for my analysis, not the UE claims from Labor.

I think this 144k will end up being an overestimate.
The Professor

[elehhhhna]

6. Where's this 5% unemployment they're touting? Dreamland? I call BS!

[kikiek]

7. I haven't seen any number as low as 5 pct. Stayed the same

but I saw other stories that said they are reporting actual is 7 pct. Number is lower because people are dropping off benefits.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I Think, Traditionally, That 1.3% Is Added

I'm not sure about that, although i should be. But, IIRC, most employment tracking economists, add 1.3% to the reported number to get the real number of unemployed. Then, they add something like 3% to that number to include chronically unemployed, which is defined as someone who used to work, that just doesn't want to, and has no visible means of support. These are the homeless, and i guess, wanderers, who now live on the fringes of society.

The number is always way higher than reported, because this number only indicates those out of work, looking for work, collecting unemployment insurance, and WANTING a job. That's four fairly narrow criteria.
The Professor

[kikiek]

9. That would make sense since that puts it at 5.7 as I read elsewhere.

[johnnie]

10. Chances are

These are the jobs in the fast food market that the kids who were working them had to go back to school. So they filled them in with some of the unemployed.

[Blue_Roses]

11. EXACTLY !

I just wrote this same thing in the thread in LBN. School did indeed start this month and I know my child's school is still hiring teachers for the large enrollment. These are "standard" jobs that are not reflective of a TRUE growing economy.

We need jobs that are created through new and innovative technology. That is why Clinton's economy was so good. He allowed new ideas and welcomed new technology for the progression into the 21st century. We really should be much farther along with technology.

[louis c]

12. Quality of Jobs

is what's important.

I just saw AFL-CIO President John Sweeney on C-Span and he made that distinction.

Again, for the fifth time in five months, let me explain the scenario.

If I had a job two years ago making 50K plus health benefits, and I lost that job to the poor Bush economy..................

and I had to go out and find work in the service sector. I then have to put two part time jobs together in which I make 20K each.............

I figure that my pay has been cut by 20%, and I have lost my health ins. coverage.....................

The Bush Administration figures that I am twice as better off than two years ago, because I now have two jobs, instead of just one.