Where is the US economy headed?

@spendius,

If you can't figure out what a "job" is, there's no way I can explain it to such an ignoramus who's lived as long as you!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

But you can't you see. You're using sentences in which the key word is a mystery. Your idea is an end and a real job is an economic means.

You don't seriously think I don't know what you mean by the word do you? And it's invalid on an economy thread. The looking after a sick or elderly person for no pay is not a job to you. And primping up a poodle is a job to you. Economic incoherence.

Getting $5 million a year busting the bank is a job to you. And a very good one. Taking the soup round to the homeless is not a job. And you a socialist. A likely story.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There's a difference between a "job" and "work."

You are confused.

I know you lack skills in English, but this is ridiculous!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I've asked you to define "work" as well and you produced the same answers a few times. You can define neither job nor work. Perhaps its just as well I suppose.

Your claim that everybody is stupid necessarily includes yourself bearing in mind that you are at the bottom end of the intelligence range.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Run a vocabulary check comparing my posts with yours and the use of literary tropes. You're nowhere. Your vocabulary is self-evidently what it was when you were 12.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, the BLS will be out tomorrow at 8:30 am with the February unemployment rates. The one watched by the media is U-3 which was 8.3% in January. I see it as highly likely to fall to 8.2% and a drop to 8.1% is certainly possible.
I'm sorry to stray back on topic. The last page was somewhat amusing, I guess.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

If you can't see John that I was on topic, fundamentally, then you have the same problem dimwit has.

Has a stay at home mother got a job? Does she work? How do you compare what she does with the poodle pamperer?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I was, gently I hope, being critical of the tone of the writing, Spendius. It does get more then a bit tedious to wade through. Would you agree with that?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Those are simple terms that most people understand - except you! Quit while you are behind; it'll save you some anguish.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Now you don't know what anguish means.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

There were people telling you that the mortgage market was a Ponzi scheme a long time before it turned out to be.

These non-economic definitions of job and work are also a Ponzi scheme. If you create a million jobs what pays for them? If there's something there to pay for them why don't you just take it and enjoy it?

I reckon you could all be on a two day week, 40 weeks a year, retiring at 50 if you got your **** together. We have this fanfuckingtastic mechanistic efficiency and we work harder than any population ever known except for slaves. All because of Veblen's Law: Waste=Status and Use=Odium.

Does that range of smartly dressed well educated parade thanking us for watching Fox Extra have jobs. If so have more Fox Extras and more in the parade. Piece of cake.

You're mostly working in the service of the Godhead--the Invidious Comparison. Our economic needs can be catered for by about 5% of the population.

You're off topic John. You're doing psychology. And the mesmeric techniques. Not economics.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

I was, gently I hope, being critical of the tone of the writing, Spendius.

I ought to add that your genteel euphemisms mean the same to me as ci.'s ignorant blurts.

1 Reply

@spendius,

"Hey Ho--Hey Ho, And off to work we go.
We'll sing this song all day long,
Hey Ho, Hey Ho, Hey Ho.

Ever watch Seven Brides For Seven Brothers as irony?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Shows can be an irony; but to assume any one show shows irony is based on one's personal observation, and nothing else.

Now, back to the topic.

With the improvement in the US economy, more people are leaning towards voting for Obama. This is a trend the conservatives can't do anything about, except to continue their lies and innuendos about blaming Obama for the high gas prices. Chumps.

1 Reply

This could be really dull reading. Feel free to skip over it in order to get back to the witty writing on this thread.
U3 (8.3%) could drop to 8.2% or 8.1% tomorrow.
> I was wading through various sites today and noticed an uptick in blogs complaining about the Labor Dept and the BLS numbers. Some of the comments accuse Obama of corrupting the data and the career beancounters as being complicit.
> I have no problem with people using alternative measures of employment, such as U6. I have no problem with Spendius using some sort of index based on what is a meaningful job. All I would ask is that, by whatever measure you might want to use, we might need to see a chart or graph covering some period of time. 6 Years?
> If you are standing around the water cooler tomorrow discussing U-3, the big thing will be the term "seasonally adjusted." U-3 assumed that there would be hiring, for example, during the holiday season at retail stores and which would fall back after the 1st of the season. I am not sure that that hiring happened. The BLS assumed that there would be less construction work in the winter which might be offset a bit by more snowplowing. Did you know that this has been the 4th warmest winter since the BLS started tracking unemployment? The numbers are really getting skewed.
Auto sales have been decent. Who would buy a new car in February and subject it to the weather in the NE? Unless there is no winter anymore. Car sales are not bad and "seasonally adjusted" probably doesn't take that into account.
See you tomorrow.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

RJB, this article Study: older workers are exiting fast, shrinking the labor force addresses some of the labor statistics complaints from a different perspective.

Excerpt:

Quote:

New research challenges the conventional wisdom that the unemployment rate is falling because workers have given up looking for a job and have exited the labor force, and the rate likely will climb again once these discouraged Americans renew their search for a job.

In a March 1 report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," economist Dean Maki at Barclays Capital, part of the British financial giant Barclays, argued that the size of the U.S. workforce is shrinking as aging baby boomers hit retirement age amid a sluggish economy. This — not the so-called missing workers from the labor force — may be knocking down the jobless rate faster than expected.

...

During the economic expansion from 2003 to late 2007, the labor force participation rate was about 66 percent. It fell amid the recession and has been trending around 64 percent. It's led to the view that the dynamics will change when workers who exited the labor market feel confident enough to start looking for work again.

But Maki thinks the onslaught of retiring boomers — Americans born between 1946 and 1964 — will continue to pull down the labor force participation rate even as discouraged workers resume looking for jobs. The crux of his argument is that the labor force is growing more slowly, and that by itself is holding the jobless rate down.

Barclays' research found, in fact, that unemployed re-entrants to the workforce as a share of the labor force stood at 2.2 percent in January 2012, compared to 1.3 percent in August 2007, months before the December start of the Great Recession. That means re-entrants to the workforce are already twice that of pre-recession levels, and yet the unemployment rate has fallen from a high of 10 percent in October 2009 to 8.3 percent in January 2012.

2 Replies

@Butrflynet,

I read that article, B'net, on another post you made. I am not sure I understand his logic. Maybe it will make more sense tomorrow.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

With the improvement in the US economy. . .

That's neither here nor there ci. What you mean is how we feel about the the improvement in the economy. I use "we" there to mean those who will decide the election.

The whole point of the so-called recession is that it is a natural correction, and thus scientific, functioning, intended or not, to improve the economy. What you mean by "improvement in the US economy" might be disastrous. That's what the argument is about. It's not about your silly, babylike, circular definitions of words which have no point precisely because they are circular except to make you sound good to yourself and anybody daft enough to take the slightest notice. And to win the argument simply on your own definitions of the words you use. Or base, very base in your case, sophistry.

You never read a decent economic textbook in your life. You are not able to.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

That's an excellent article that identifies one of the variables that impacts the unemployment rate. However, it's been known for many years that "new" jobs must be at the 200,000 per month range for our economy to really reduce the "real" unemployment in this country to work towards "full" employment.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Define "full employment". Economically.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know