Jobs

Superman · 07-03-2008, 09:02 AM

What's the latest on job growth under the Dubya "administration?"

And what do things like oil prices and inflation look like?

Can anybody predict a winner in the upcoming November elections?

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Bad.

Going up. Unless you actually trust the (manipulated) GAO numbers which "tweak" the definitions & formulas used to make things look better than they actually are.

Obama. By a landslide.

john70t · 07-03-2008, 09:10 AM

The 2008 presidential elections will be postponed inefinitely due to security concerns.
The rest is classified or unknown, just like Iraq expenditures and casualties.

BGCarrera32 · 07-03-2008, 09:15 AM

And congress has really been hot on the trail of job growth with their sub 20% approval rating and talk of raising taxes to lift us into prosperity.

You guys crack me up. Its soooo simple to pin it on one guy and you have it sorted out to a tee.

dd74 · 07-03-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

What's the latest on job growth under the Dubya "administration?"

62,000 (more) jobs lost in June of this year. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0_w3JcB7xDVceG-8tgrc6W6a4Gw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

And what do things like oil prices and inflation look like?

$200 a barrel by year's end, analysts say. Inflation will rise accordingly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

Can anybody predict a winner in the upcoming November elections?

I have my reservations, but it will be Obama by a huge margin, but only because Americans are so reactionary, not because of anything Obama says, predicts or offers.

Rikao4 · 09:49 AM

Bad, up, O,
it will take a while for the Dodo's to realize what they have unleashed & the price that goes with it..
and that will be the end of America as I know it..
The current US ,
is like a boxing match..
he's stumbling, swinging wildly..oil,real estate,jobs ,automakers,Iraq,Iran..
along comes O and breaks his legs with GLEE...

I will get stoned ,drink, lay by the pool retired,
his latest stick..community service..volunteers to help the country change.

nothin for nothin bro.
Rika

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

62,000 jobs lost in June, but unemployment has stayed the same at 5.5%, which means there was some growth to offset that loss. POTUS has little if any control over this stuff. But I am curious to see how raising taxes, both income and payroll, will make employers hire more people when Obama is POTUS. This will be an amazing feat.

Rikao4 · 07-03-2008, 09:56 AM

that's easy Rick, things change..
Rika

Superman · 07-03-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

62,000 jobs lost in June, but unemployment has stayed the same at 5.5%, which means there was some growth to offset that loss.

Nope. Unemployment numbers are widely misunderstood. People fall out of this group in both directions. If you stop taking public assistance and/or stop looking for work....you're not counted in the 5.5%. The missing numbers are not evidence of "growth." They are evidence of hopelessness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

POTUS has little if any control over this stuff. But I am curious to see how raising taxes, both income and payroll, will make employers hire more people when Obama is POTUS. This will be an amazing feat.

While Dubya is "president," I'm going to hear about how POTUS cannot affect the economy. Later, under President Obama (has a nice ring, eh?) I will hear about how the economy is his fault.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Well, I guess a POTUS could make things a lot worse if he wanted to. But I don't see how a slight downturn after seven pretty good years is evidence of Bush's doing anything right or wrong.

BTW, are you suggesting that, because there are plenty of folks whose employment we can't track, we must assume the actual numbers to always be worse than reported? Why not better?

Superman · 07-03-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

BTW, are you suggesting that, because there are plenty of folks whose employment we can't track, we must assume the actual numbers to always be worse than reported? Why not better?

Yes. This is a brute fact. The "unemployment rate" is a subset of the population of people who are not working. It is also a subset of the population of people who could work, and would work, but simply do not have jobs. It is one of those statistics that is, by definition, an understatement.

onewhippedpuppy · 07-03-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

What's the latest on job growth under the Dubya "administration?"

And what do things like oil prices and inflation look like?

Can anybody predict a winner in the upcoming November elections?

Congress sure is kicking ass, huh? Those hearings on steroids in baseball, and bringing the oil company CEOs to testify, THAT is called making a difference.

Buying in wholesale to partisan politics is one sure sign of a foolish sheep that is incapable of independent thought. I'll be interested to see who catches the blame if Obama does win. Oh wait, you'll all just blame the "Bush legacy".

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

So, no matter how good or bad the numbers are, in reality, they're always worse, right? Does that really sound like it makes sense to you?

FWIW, my folks are unemployed and don't need or want to work anymore. I think my mom collected unemployment after her layoff for as long as she could and then started her own business when that ran out. She just does part-time work to keep busy. When she booked $70k last year, she decided to get serious. But she was one of your poor, unemployed, off-the-books statistics for a few years.

My dad's job is ending this week, but he's getting 5 mos. severance and hasn't needed to work for many years. Yeah, he's another one of those poor unemployed folks.

I know you always want it to look bad, as that bolsters labor unions' political goals. But it's not all doom and gloom out there. Oh, and my wife landed a job in Phoenix three weeks to the day from moving here and is making more than me now. How does the world keep turning?

dd74 · 07-03-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

Yes. This is a brute fact. The "unemployment rate" is a subset of the population of people who are not working. It is also a subset of the population of people who could work, and would work, but simply do not have jobs. It is one of those statistics that is, by definition, an understatement.

Correct.

Superman · 07-03-2008, 10:50 AM

Glad to hear you and your family are doing well, Rick. Sincerely.

None of the family members you described would fall into the "unemployment rate" statistic. And neither would I conclude that they should be counted. It would be interesting to see the percentage of the population that wants to work, can work, cannot find work and are not using public assistance. This would be a percentage that is not included in the "unemployment rate" but would be interesting to see. According to economists, this number is not inconsequential. At times it competes with the "unemployment rate." Particularly at times like these, right now. When things get unusually rough in the job market, the "unemployment rate" is not reflective. The group that grows is this hidden number, outside the "unemployment rate."

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Another factor that becomes very real to a lot of folks in an economic downturn, and is ignored COMPLETELY by the government is "underemployment".

For example, let's say a college-educated professional with 10 years of management experience gets laid off. To make ends meet, he/she takes a $8 an hour job flipping burgers because it's all that's available and the only place in town that's hiring at all, at any price. Technically, by the government's definition, he's not "unemployed" but is sure as hell underemployed, possibly able to only (barely) make a housing payment but certainly not to pay for outstanding loans, credit cards, car payments, insurance costs, gas costs (especially today), utilities, health care, etc. They're also probably not getting benefits anymore.

This is a very real problem in economic downturns and is COMPLETELY ignored by the statistics as reported.

My wife went through a situation very, very similar to the above back in 2002, so I do know a thing or two about this.

Rikao4 · 07-03-2008, 11:41 AM

Supe version Texas style,
The Un-employment center..on Monday ..say 200 show for the dance,
almost a 3 day process to get the check
Mon. AM 200 start..rude & indifferent staff , little or no help from staff, come back at 1
1..about 150 return..same ****..come back tomm.
Tues. AM maybe 100>>that afternoon 75
Weds. 50 will likely see $ / 150 'outside'

Rika

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikao4

Supe version Texas style,
The Un-employment center..on Monday ..say 200 show for the dance,
almost a 3 day process to get the check
Mon. AM 200 start..rude & indifferent staff , little or no help from staff, come back at 1
1..about 150 return..same ****..come back tomm.
Tues. AM maybe 100>>that afternoon 75
Weds. 50 will likely see $ / 150 'outside'

Rika

I got laid off once the very day after I had accepted a better offer elsewhere. But I had a few weeks until the start date so I filed for unemployment. Between my severance, signing bonus and two weeks of unemployment, I did better than never missing a paycheck. But on paper, I was unemployed in that month's report.

Superman · 07-03-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Another factor that becomes very real to a lot of folks in an economic downturn, and is ignored COMPLETELY by the government is "underemployment".

For example, let's say a college-educated professional with 10 years of management experience gets laid off. To make ends meet, he/she takes a $8 an hour job flipping burgers because it's all that's available and the only place in town that's hiring at all, at any price. Technically, by the government's definition, he's not "unemployed" but is sure as hell underemployed, possibly able to only (barely) make a housing payment but certainly not to pay for outstanding loans, credit cards, car payments, insurance costs, gas costs (especially today), utilities, health care, etc. They're also probably not getting benefits anymore.

This is a very real problem in economic downturns and is COMPLETELY ignored by the statistics as reported.

My wife went through a situation very, very similar to the above back in 2002, so I do know a thing or two about this.

Indeed. Some companies have experimented with a "skill based" compensation system. They pay a worker for the contributions they COULD make. If the worker is in a position that fails to utilize their most valuable skills, the company is basically losing money. It motivates managers to use their skill inventories more strategically.

Unfortunately I see no clear way of encouraging this kind of efficiency better than the "market forces" you love so dearly (yes, I like market forces too but I just don't place Carte Blanche faith in them like you do).

Yes, America could be more efficient. And maybe, we will NEED to.

island911 · 07-03-2008, 01:10 PM

So Supe, since Iraq body count isn't high enough you've decided to say unemployment is a big hidden issue. --wow! --Bankrupt of ideas

I suspect that we have been experiencing some of the highest employment ever, these past 7yrs. Have you heard the term "frictional unemployment"? That's what we have been enjoying lately. --Unemployment that reflects people moving from job to job, and feeling fine with taking some time off in between. (as Rick points to)