IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 These jobs probably suck, though. The 5 percent civilian unemployment rate, meanwhile, was down a notch from the 5.1 percent registered in May. It matched the jobless rate in September 2001 and was bested only by a 4.9 percent unemployment rate in August 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 These jobs probably suck, though. 377508[/snapback] Did you just move in next door to Parrot in Ohio to Neverneverbetterlandranch? Sheesh. I guess the semi-rosy picture of this month is the real number and the crappy numbers of May were just lies from the liberal media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Flight suit, nose pick, halliburton, Patriot act....... Only jobs at Mcdonalds are available. Ding.... Oh Hot Pocket Oh look something shiny. Gotta go American Idol and WOSP are on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Unemployment numbers only follow the number of people filing for/collecting unemployment. It doesn't track the people who have run out of the unemployment option and fall off the books (used to be like 16 weeks, not sure what it is now) nor does it account for the people who just give up (couples who decide to just have one spouse stay at home with the kids because they can't find work). From the same page linked to by LA, you can click on a seperate article saying that no one is hiring. What's a better indicator...people who can't find work, or the fact that companies aren't hiring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 Did you just move in next door to Parrot in Ohio to Neverneverbetterlandranch? Sheesh. I guess the semi-rosy picture of this month is the real number and the crappy numbers of May were just lies from the liberal media. 377532[/snapback] Or maybe the media doesnt like working overtime to bash the US when the target shrinks. Five percent. Not a bad number. But stand tall. We'll be at 9, 10, or 11 someday, and then the target will be bigger and then people won't have to work so hard to find what's wrong with our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Man, I love the rehashing of this stuff every month. Same arguments every time. Super refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 Unemployment numbers only follow the number of people filing for/collecting unemployment. It doesn't track the people who have run out of the unemployment option and fall off the books (used to be like 16 weeks, not sure what it is now) nor does it account for the people who just give up (couples who decide to just have one spouse stay at home with the kids because they can't find work). From the same page linked to by LA, you can click on a seperate article saying that no one is hiring. What's a better indicator...people who can't find work, or the fact that companies aren't hiring? 377543[/snapback] What I don't understand is how when the number goes up, it's real and true and made for a great argument when it worked in the left's favor (since that all I read the past couple of years), but when the number goes down, it's all a bunch of crap. I'm not saying you specifically, just in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Can't hardy wait to see what the nuts on the left have to complain about here. After all it's just another positive economic report. If the same report had come out with a lib in the white house there would have been an orgy to end all orgies. There would have been a gala thrown in honor of whoever was in office. There would have been a move to immediately place that persons face on Mt. Rushmore. Then after all that was taken care of, there would have been a big parade to celebrate the amazing accomplishments of such a caring and wise person. Instead we are stuck with people like kennedy, shumer, and byrd who will find some evil meaning to such numbers. Perhaps haliburton is behind it, or some other evil conservative hate group, who want to see people working and taking care of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Flight suit, nose pick, halliburton, Patriot act....... Only jobs at Mcdonalds are available. Ding.... Oh Hot Pocket Oh look something shiny. Gotta go American Idol and WOSP are on. 377537[/snapback] It's the economy stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 What I don't understand is how when the number goes up, it's real and true and made for a great argument when it worked in the left's favor (since that all I read the past couple of years), but when the number goes down, it's all a bunch of crap. I'm not saying you specifically, just in general. 377552[/snapback] I thought both articles did a good job of tempering what the numbers indicate. Unemployment is down as measured by number of people that file for benefits, but just because those numbers went down doesn't mean everything is fantastic, because those people coming out of school or who are out of work are going to find it hard to find work. I wasn't trying to negate what the unemployment numbers mean. They just don't tell the whole story. Each side can use them for their own propoganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I thought both articles did a good job of tempering what the numbers indicate. Unemployment is down as measured by number of people that file for benefits, but just because those numbers went down doesn't mean everything is fantastic, because those people coming out of school or who are out of work are going to find it hard to find work. I wasn't trying to negate what the unemployment numbers mean. They just don't tell the whole story. Each side can use them for their own propoganda. 377560[/snapback] We see you're doing a wonderful job with your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 We see you're doing a wonderful job with your side. 377562[/snapback] Actually, he was. He explained how it affects both sides' arguments, which he often does. You, on the other hand, virtually never see or acknowledge or give creedence to the other side's argument and only argue yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 Ahhhh...now...see...spirited discussion. Personally I know it's all spin, although I just hired employee #4 so I'm doing my part. Frankly I'm just bustin' balls. I feel like a Cards fan jumping into a Mets thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Actually, he was. He explained how it affects both sides' arguments, which he often does. You, on the other hand, virtually never see or acknowledge or give creedence to the other side's argument and only argue yours. 377569[/snapback] Not true. I look at everyone, both sides as generally stupid, and hate most people. Therefore I am usually correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Not true. I look at everyone, both sides as generally stupid, and hate most people. Therefore I am usually correct. 377574[/snapback] Yeah, I can see that. I was hoping that during many of those intimate conversations in the car with your daughter, instead of watching filth on a DVD, she could be getting one of your endearing "I fukking hate people" lectures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Can't hardy wait to see what the nuts on the left... 377557[/snapback] I think, in order to save space on the TBD server, we should just assume every one of Rich's posts starts with this, and he can just fill the rest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 There would have been a move to immediately place that persons face on Mt. Rushmore. 377557[/snapback] That is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I just readjusted the resolution of my Chinese-made monitor to gain deeper insight on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I think, in order to save space on the TBD server, we should just assume every one of Rich's posts starts with this, and he can just fill the rest in. 377610[/snapback] We could add a button for it at least. And a "HotPockets" button, a "Halliburton" button, since all these signifiers have become so devoid of meaning that smiley faces tend to say more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Unemployment numbers only follow the number of people filing for/collecting unemployment. It doesn't track the people who have run out of the unemployment option and fall off the books (used to be like 16 weeks, not sure what it is now) nor does it account for the people who just give up (couples who decide to just have one spouse stay at home with the kids because they can't find work). From the same page linked to by LA, you can click on a seperate article saying that no one is hiring. What's a better indicator...people who can't find work, or the fact that companies aren't hiring? 377543[/snapback] Is the current way of determining "unemployment numbers" different now under GWB than it was under previous Presidents; such as Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts