[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriend...toryID=3769468

Jobless Claims Plunge, Productivity Soars
Thu November 06, 2003 09:30 AM ET

By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing first-time claims for jobless benefits took an unexpectedly sharp plunge last week, reaching a level not seen since before the economy tumbled into recession in 2001, a government report showed on Thursday.

A separate report showed U.S. business productivity soared in the third quarter, suggesting little risk inflation will flare despite signs the economic recovery is on firmer ground.

Initial claims for state unemployment aid fell 43,000 to 348,000 in the week to Nov. 1 from a revised 391,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest level since late January 2001, two months before the recession began.

Stocks were poised to open higher on the data, which suggested an improvement in corporate profits and offered hope a jobs recovery may finally be at hand. Prices for U.S. Treasury securities fell sharply, while the dollar rose.

Economists had expected claims to slip to 380,000 from 386,000 -- a figure boosted by a grocery store strike in California -- initially reported for the week to Oct. 25.

"The large drop in claims ... confirms that firms have begun to hire and employment has turned up," said Jade Zelnik, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital Markets.

A spokesman for the department said he could not account for the big drop in claims last week, but said problems with seasonal adjustment of the data could be a factor.

"Every week we encourage (looking at) the four-week average. This is certainly one of those weeks," he said.

The four-week average, which smoothes weekly volatility to present a clearer picture of labor-market trends, fell 10,000 to 380,000 last week, its lowest level since March 2001.

Initial claims and the four-week average have been below 400,000 for five weeks. Economists see that level as a divide between an improving and deteriorating labor market.

PRODUCTIVITY SURGE

Last week, the government reported that the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter, the strongest pace in nearly two decades.

Despite that, the economy shed 41,000 non-farm jobs as gains in productivity enabled firms to meet increased demand for goods and services without expanding their workforce.

The Labor Department said on Thursday non-farm business productivity climbed at an 8.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter, accelerating from an upwardly revised 7.0 percent gain in the prior three months.

The increase reflected a rise in output that was the strongest in over 10 years, and only a small increase in the number of hours workers put in on the job.

The productivity gain pushed unit labor costs -- a gauge of potential wage pressures -- down at a 4.6 percent pace, suggesting a good quarterly performance for corporate profit.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast an 8.5 percent gain in productivity and a 4.7 percent drop in unit labor costs.

Analysts say the recent productivity pace is unsustainably strong, and some said the fall in jobless claims suggested firms were finally having to hire to meet demand.

On Friday, the department releases its employment report for October. Financial market economists are looking for U.S. payrolls to rise 55,000 after a 57,000 gain in September. They expect the jobless rate to hold steady at 6.1 percent.

[Spliffdaddy]

Economy shows undeniable growth. Employment is increasing. 93.9% employment is the stuff dreams are made of.


GO DUBYA!!!

[Lerkfish]

from the same article

A spokesman for the department said he could not account for the big drop in claims last week, but said problems with seasonal adjustment of the data could be a factor.

also, one should note the difference between "first time claims" and all claims.

Don't be mislead, how the government manipulates statistics is always in its own favor....regardless of who is in charge of the government.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
(and conveniently excised by the originator of the thread)

It's funny, when someone cuts things like that out, he must know his entire argument is faulty. So why do would you bother to intentially mislead if, when researched, we can find the truth which undermines your point in the article itself?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by petehammer:
It's funny, when someone cuts things like that out, he must know his entire argument is faulty. So why do would you bother to intentially mislead if, when researched, we can find the truth which undermines your point in the article itself?

I must say "whoops" here, and explain why I deleted the very line you quoted from my own post...I assumed the originator had deleted it, but when I reread his quoting, he had not. Just apparently didn't catch it himself.

[NYCFarmboy]

Huh? I didn't delete any line I don't think?

Which line did I delete? Can someone tell me so I can put it in?

The link is posted at the very top of this thread for the entire article.

[Spliffdaddy]

color me confused.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
color me confused.

LOL..oh well..when you don't like the facts... bamboozle away...

Facts remain stubborn things though.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
color me confused.

Pete quoted part of Lerk's post which was subsequently deleted. The part in question inferred that NYCboy had purposely removed the part of the article that Lerk quoted in his post. Lerk - realizing that this wasn't in fact the case - removed the inference from his post then posted a followup to clarify the reason for his editing.

Clear?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Pete quoted part of Lerk's post which was subsequently deleted. The part in question inferred that NYCboy had purposely removed the part of the article that Lerk quoted in his post. Lerk - realizing that this wasn't in fact the case - removed the inference from his post then posted a followup to clarify the reason for his editing.

Clear?

Further, petehammer was very, very quick, because I edited my post within a minute of originally posting it. I thought no one had seen MY error, which if so, would have been no harm no foul. However, since I was wrong and someone did see it before I edited it out, I posted aftewards with an apologetic explanation, hoping that would clear things up.

now...I hope this has been sufficiently explained to everyone's satisfaction.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Further, petehammer was very, very quick, because I edited my post within a minute of originally posting it. I thought no one had seen MY error, which if so, would have been no harm no foul. However, since I was wrong and someone did see it before I edited it out, I posted aftewards with an apologetic explanation, hoping that would clear things up.

now...I hope this has been sufficiently explained to everyone's satisfaction.

LOL..ok..I'm still confused..but..hey.. thats ok.

[thunderous_funker]

Maybe I'm dyslexic, but how does a decrease in the number of first-time unemployment claims indicate job growth? How does fewer people filing for benefits mean more people have jobs?

"Less people died last month so the birth rate must be higher.."



Particularly when other reports say the number of layoffs doubled from Sept to Oct.

Am I missing something?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Maybe I'm dyslexic, but how does a decrease in the number of first-time unemployment claims indicate job growth? How does fewer people filing for benefits mean more people have jobs?

"Less people died last month so the birth rate must be higher.."



Particularly when other reports say the number of layoffs doubled from Sept to Oct.

Am I missing something?

yeah, you're not applying noneuclidean republican logic.

[Zimphire]

Less people signing up of unemployment, more jobs being gotten.

Come on guys, I know you don't want this to be true REALLY REALLY BADLY, but lets not act totally dense out of denial.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Less people signing up of unemployment, more jobs being gotten.

can you demonstrate how this is true?
Not just claim its true, can you logically show how it is true?

I can easily show how it is not true:

-- There are 20 available jobs, and 25 workers. There are 5 unemployed people ALREADY on unemployment.
-- Corporation lays off 2 more people. There are now 18 jobs, and 2 NEW people apply for unemployment.
-- 2 new people applying are less than the 5 that previously applied..therefore a huge drop in NEW applications.
Yet the jobs available has also decreased, AND there are more people unemployed than before.

see? I can demonstrate your assertion can be untrue. Can you demonstrate how it can be true?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
can you demonstrate how this is true?
Not just claim its true, can you logically show how it is true?

I can easily show how it is not true:

-- There are 20 available jobs, and 25 workers. There are 5 unemployed people ALREADY on unemployment.
-- Corporation lays off 2 more people. There are now 18 jobs, and 2 NEW people apply for unemployment.
-- 2 new people applying are less than the 5 that previously applied..therefore a huge drop in NEW applications.
Yet the jobs available has also decreased, AND there are more people unemployed than before.

see? I can demonstrate your assertion can be untrue. Can you demonstrate how it can be true?

"glass half empty?"

If this were happening under a Democrat's watch you'd be doing backflips.

[Y3a]

It's all a cycle anyway.

Job #'s it one of the last things that increase since companies like to have more $$ in the bank before expanding again, So they overwork the employees they have for the extra profits.

The Democrats have been using that fact to whine about jobless numbers as yet more politics.

Raising the minimum wage decreases the number of jobs because struggling companies can't afford the higher wages for the lowest paid workers.

[swrate]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriend...toryID=3769468

Jobless Claims Plunge, Productivity Soars
Thu November 06, 2003 09:30 AM ET

By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing first-time claims for jobless benefits took an unexpectedly sharp plunge last week, reaching a level not seen since before the economy tumbled into recession in 2001, a government report showed on Thursday.

A separate report showed U.S. business productivity soared in the third quarter, suggesting little risk inflation will flare despite signs the economic recovery is on firmer ground.

Initial claims for state unemployment aid fell 43,000 to 348,000 in the week to Nov. 1 from a revised 391,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest level since late January 2001, two months before the recession began.

Stocks were poised to open higher on the data, which suggested an improvement in corporate profits and offered hope a jobs recovery may finally be at hand. Prices for U.S. Treasury securities fell sharply, while the dollar rose.

Economists had expected claims to slip to 380,000 from 386,000 -- a figure boosted by a grocery store strike in California -- initially reported for the week to Oct. 25.

"The large drop in claims ... confirms that firms have begun to hire and employment has turned up," said Jade Zelnik, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital Markets.

A spokesman for the department said he could not account for the big drop in claims last week, but said problems with seasonal adjustment of the data could be a factor.

"Every week we encourage (looking at) the four-week average. This is certainly one of those weeks," he said.

The four-week average, which smoothes weekly volatility to present a clearer picture of labor-market trends, fell 10,000 to 380,000 last week, its lowest level since March 2001.

Initial claims and the four-week average have been below 400,000 for five weeks. Economists see that level as a divide between an improving and deteriorating labor market.

PRODUCTIVITY SURGE

Last week, the government reported that the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter, the strongest pace in nearly two decades.

Despite that, the economy shed 41,000 non-farm jobs as gains in productivity enabled firms to meet increased demand for goods and services without expanding their workforce.

The Labor Department said on Thursday non-farm business productivity climbed at an 8.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter, accelerating from an upwardly revised 7.0 percent gain in the prior three months.

The increase reflected a rise in output that was the strongest in over 10 years, and only a small increase in the number of hours workers put in on the job.

The productivity gain pushed unit labor costs -- a gauge of potential wage pressures -- down at a 4.6 percent pace, suggesting a good quarterly performance for corporate profit.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast an 8.5 percent gain in productivity and a 4.7 percent drop in unit labor costs.

Analysts say the recent productivity pace is unsustainably strong, and some said the fall in jobless claims suggested firms were finally having to hire to meet demand.

On Friday, the department releases its employment report for October. Financial market economists are looking for U.S. payrolls to rise 55,000 after a 57,000 gain in September. They expect the jobless rate to hold steady at 6.1 percent.

I was wondering in what field the situation had improved.....




also, does a soldier taking service
change his status?
43 000?

strange coincidence.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"glass half empty?"

If this were happening under a Democrat's watch you'd be doing backflips.

Lerk just doesn't want anything good to happen under W.

Of course he is going to look at it half empty.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"glass half empty?"

If this were happening under a Democrat's watch you'd be doing backflips.

and you refute my logic in what way?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk just doesn't want anything good to happen under W.

Of course he is going to look at it half empty.

zim, that is not a demonstration of how your assertion was correct. I have conclusively shown how it is incorrect.

Are you too afraid to attempt to demonstrate how it could be correct?

Pessimissim has nothing to do with it.


Logic. Try logic.

[Spliffdaddy]

Then point to the last thread where you had something GOOD to say about conservative Republicans or Dubya.

Don't pretend to be unbiased in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes me wonder if you think we're all stupid.

I'm willing to admit my right-wing bias. After all, I'd look kinda silly trying to convince people that I didn't have one. Besides, I would be lying.

[NYCFarmboy]

From today's New York Times:

Employment Rose Sharply in October as Jobless Rate Fell


By DAVID LEONHARDT

Published: November 7, 2003


The longest hiring slump in more than 60 years finally appears to have ended.

Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, the Labor Department reported today, and job growth in August and September was significantly stronger than the government had initially estimated. It was the first time since late 2000 that the economy added workers for three straight months.

The unemployment rate fell slightly in October, to 6 percent, from 6.1 percent the month before.

"This is as dramatic a turnaround as you could hope for," said Ian C. Shepherdson, the chief domestic economist at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, N.Y.

Restaurants, real-estate companies, doctor's offices and most of the rest of the broad service sector added to their payrolls last month, apparently in response to the recent jump in household spending, economists said.

Manufacturers, still struggling against foreign competition, cut jobs for the 39th consecutive month, but the loss was the smallest since the early months of the streak.

The number of people working part-time because they could not find full-time work fell 139,000, to 4.8 million. Average hourly wages rose by just a single cent, but an increase in hours as businesses worked harder to keep up with rising demand fattened weekly paychecks.

The recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force, suggesting that last month's decline in the jobless rate might have been a statistical blip.

"This is at most the beginning of the end, not the end itself," Drew Matus, an economist at Lehman Brothers, wrote in a note to clients this morning. The labor market recovery "is still in its early stages and still somewhat fragile."

But the increases also represent clear progress after two and a half years of layoffs and weak hiring that sliced the nation's payrolls by more than 2.5 million jobs, the biggest decline since the early 1980's.

The report offered more good economic news for President Bush, who has credited the three tax cuts passed since 2001 with softening the economic slump and predicted that they would eventually lead to job growth.

"We're delighted," said N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. "I think we'll see robust job growth going forward."

The employment gain complicates the task of the Democratic presidential candidates, who have the made the severe job losses a centerpiece of their campaigns. Representative Pete Stark of California, the ranking Democrat on Congress's Joint Economic Committee, noted that the current pace of job growth would need to continue for 19 months to return to the peak employment level reached in early 2001.

If the job gains continue, they will also increase the odds that the Federal Reserve will raise its benchmark short-term interest rate during the first half of next year. Since June, the Fed has kept the federal funds rate on overnight loans at its lowest level since 1958 in an effort to shock the economy out of its sluggishness.

Low interest rates have led to a surge in mortgage refinancing, giving many families more cash to spend, and also decreased the cost of many car loans, small business loans and other types of loans.

Stocks rose modestly after the release of today's employment report. By mid-morning, the Standard & Poor 500-stock index was up about two-tenths of 1 percent. Bond prices, meanwhile, were lower. The Treasury's benchmark 10-year note was down about half a point, while its yield rose to 4.47 percent, from 4.41 percent late Thursday.

[Spliffdaddy]

"The employment gain complicates the task of the Democratic presidential candidates, who have the made the severe job losses a centerpiece of their campaigns."


I hope they find a better centerpiece. That one sucked from the get-go.

Didn't anybody tell the Democrats that 96% of the voters are EMPLOYED?

Are they reaching out to the 4% of unemployed voters? (edit: although it might be a larger voting base than southern white guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks )

Maybe this job growth is a good thing for Democrats. Maybe it'll prompt them to find a viable 'centerpiece'.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"The employment gain complicates the task of the Democratic presidential candidates, who have the made the severe job losses a centerpiece of their campaigns."


I hope they find a better centerpiece. That one sucked from the get-go.

Didn't anybody tell the Democrats that 96% of the voters are EMPLOYED?

Are they reaching out to the 4% of unemployed voters? (edit: although it might be a larger voting base than southern white guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks )

Maybe this job growth is a good thing for Democrats. Maybe it'll prompt them to find a viable 'centerpiece'.

As Rush says: Its a very sad fact that good news for America is bad news for the Democrat Party.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Then point to the last thread where you had something GOOD to say about conservative Republicans or Dubya.

Don't pretend to be unbiased in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes me wonder if you think we're all stupid.

I'm willing to admit my right-wing bias. After all, I'd look kinda silly trying to convince people that I didn't have one. Besides, I would be lying.

Some people would sacrifice their country just to get to see Bush fail.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
As Rush says: Its a very sad fact that good news for America is bad news for the Democrat Party.

I don't care who is running the show. If the US is doing good I am happy.

Some people aren't happy unless it's "Their man" doing good.

And they will hiss and honk and make little things look big, good thing look bad and so on to justify their hatred.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't care who is running the show. If the US is doing good I am happy.

Some people aren't happy unless it's "Their man" doing good.

And they will hiss and honk and make little things look big, good thing look bad and so on to justify their hatred.

So you were all happy and content under Clinton when the economy was soaring, huh? The funny thing is you were happy too when the economy was tanking under W.
Or should I say 'The sad thing is that Republicans would reelect a president even if the economy is tanking....'
These news are good news, although the US economy is not out of the woods yet...



villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
So you were all happy and content under Clinton when the economy was soaring, huh?

I was glad when the economy was up, but I knew it wouldn't stay there for long. I also know that the President has very little to do with it.

The economy in the 90s had nothing to do with Clinton.

The funny thing is you were happy too when the economy was tanking under W.

I was unhappy when it started tanking during Clintons term, and was unhappy when it was down in Bush's term yes.

Or should I say 'The sad thing is that Republicans would reelect a president even if the economy is tanking....'
These news are good news, although the US economy is not out of the woods yet...
a

Most anyone that knows about how the economy works, knows that the President has very little control over it. They are smart and don't use it to decided such things.

[thunderous_funker]

So the "boom" under Clinton had nothing to do with Clinton, but the upturn now has everything to do with Bush?

Good news is good news. I'm glad to hear it. I've been holding onto a job I don't enjoy much out of concern that I won't find another if I move. I'm hoping that changes quite soon.

However, that doesn't mean that every modest increase in the broadest of broad economic indicators means everything is titties and ice-cream in the labor market.

Consumer spending is up, but so is consumer debt. People are spending what they don't have (just like the Fed). That will make numbers look good in the short term, but it might also plant the seeds for another drastic downturn in the not-so-distant future. Debt spending does have long term consequences.

Jobs will effect the 2004 election (whether the president can be blamed or credited or not). That's just how politics works, rightly or wrongly. If a Democrat was in office right now, you can bet your sweet bippy that the opposition would be harping about the economy, out-of-control spending, and massive job losses just like the Dems are doing now. That is the game they play, in case none of you had noticed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So the "boom" under Clinton had nothing to do with Clinton, but the upturn now has everything to do with Bush?

Nope, wasn't on Bush either.

Consumer spending is up, but so is consumer debt. People are spending what they don't have (just like the Fed). That will make numbers look good in the short term, but it might also plant the seeds for another drastic downturn in the not-so-distant future. Debt spending does have long term consequences.

Yup I agree, that is what happened in the 90s.

Jobs will effect the 2004 election (whether the president can be blamed or credited or not). That's just how politics works, rightly or wrongly. If a Democrat was in office right now, you can bet your sweet bippy that the opposition would be harping about the economy, out-of-control spending, and massive job losses just like the Dems are doing now. That is the game they play, in case none of you had noticed.

Oh I am sure. I am just saying it's idiocy.

And since the job market is getting better, I don't think W has anything to worry about.

Not that he did before.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I was glad when the economy was up, but I knew it wouldn't stay there for long. I also know that the President has very little to do with it.

The economy in the 90s had nothing to do with Clinton.

Fair enough. I guess I should have addressed that comment to Spliffdaddy
.

[/b] I was unhappy when it started tanking during Clintons term, and was unhappy when it was down in Bush's term yes.


Most anyone that knows about how the economy works, knows that the President has very little control over it. They are smart and don't use it to decided such things. [/B]

So you are saying that when Bush tells how good his econmic policy is, because it turned around the economy he is just showing us that he is an idiotic egomaniac?

Villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
So you are saying that when Bush tells how good his econmic policy is, because it turned around the economy he is just showing us that he is an idiotic egomaniac?

Villa

No he is playing on the idiots that actually think that the President has a "economy button" he can push.

[OAW]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
.... everything is titties and ice-cream ....

Oh I will have to use that one!

OAW

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No he is playing on the idiots that actually think that the President has a "economy button" he can push.

There is no question that economic and fiscal policy effect the economy. What people tend to argue about is the cost/benefits of various methods of doing so and exactly how much the effect is.

The president does have an "economy button" because he can dictate economic and fiscal policy--especially when his party controls Congress.

The president sold his plan as a "jobs creation bill". It remains to be seen whether or not that happens. There are signs of an upturn, but the jobs lost to jobs gained ratio is far from in the president's favor. In another year, enough time should have passed to see the total effect. We are seeing some positive signs, but its far from decided.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Then point to the last thread where you had something GOOD to say about conservative Republicans or Dubya.

Don't pretend to be unbiased in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes me wonder if you think we're all stupid.

I'm willing to admit my right-wing bias. After all, I'd look kinda silly trying to convince people that I didn't have one. Besides, I would be lying.

well, here's the problem. I make an extremely logical argument that none are capable of refuting....so the obvious response is to attack me personally instead...what, from three different people so far? and none of you have tried to use logic, just attacks.

weak. very weak.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, here's the problem. I make an extremely logical argument that none are capable of refuting....so the obvious response is to attack me personally instead...what, from three different people so far? and none of you have tried to use logic, just attacks.

weak. very weak.

Though coming from Spliffdaddy or Zimphire, shouldn't be that surprising. It is their M.O. after all.

Saddam sympathizer.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, here's the problem. I make an extremely logical argument that none are capable of refuting....so the obvious response is to attack me personally instead...what, from three different people so far? and none of you have tried to use logic, just attacks.

weak. very weak.

There was nothing to refute. You took the facts, and added your own opinion spin to it.

You can't refute a opinion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There was nothing to refute. You took the facts, and added your own opinion spin to it.

You can't refute a opinion.

no. I used logic to prove your opinion could be incorrect, and asked you to demonstrate how your opinion could logically be correct.

you assertion is that a drop in people applying for unemployment equalled an increase in jobs.

I'm still waiting for that to be logically demonstrated. I think you're incapable of doing so. prove me wrong.

I've made an unassailable argument that you don't have the wit or will to actually refute...you just keep up with the personal attacks.

put forth an actual argument...

[kvm_mkdb]

Since the official end of the recession in November 2001, total jobs have shrunk by 0.8 million (an 0.6% contraction) and private sector jobs have dropped by 0.9 million (or 0.8%).

http://www.jobwatch.org/

[Zimphire]

jobwatch.com made specifically to prove Bush wrong.

About JobWatch
EPI�s JobWatch web feature tracks current trends in the U.S. labor market and offers up-to-date readings on its status.

One component of JobWatch tracks job growth and measures it against the number of jobs the Bush Administration said would be created when their 2003 tax cut proposal was passed by Congress. Specifically, the Bush Administration has claimed that when the cuts went into effect the economy would create 5.5 million jobs from July 2003 through the end of 2004.

Which is a spin off of..

http://www.ourfuture.org/aboutus/

"We challenge those who suggest that nothing can be done and expose the conservative agenda that has made things worse."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no. I used logic to prove your opinion could be incorrect, and asked you to demonstrate how your opinion could logically be correct.

you assertion is that a drop in people applying for unemployment equalled an increase in jobs.

No, you gave me a opinion, then told me to prove your opinion wrong.

I'm still waiting for that to be logically demonstrated. I think you're incapable of doing so. prove me wrong.

You cannot prove a opinion wrong. It's your opinion it's not true.

I never once claimed it wasn't POSSIBLE. I said it usually means that less people are unemployed.

Now I know Lerk, when it comes to the Bush administration you like to see the jar as half empty.

So you can and do always paint it for the worst. You cannot deny this.

I've made an unassailable argument that you don't have the wit or will to actually refute...you just keep up with the personal attacks.

put forth an actual argument...

Personal attacks? What personal attacks?

[boots]

Mixed news in job growth for November.

The government reported the creation of 126,000 new jobs in November.

However, 171,000 jobs were cut in November (heard this number on the radio, so it isn't an official government statistic.)

So net job growth in November was -54,000.

That sounds bad, but the previous two months of the government report have been revised to show higher job growth than previously reported...so it's still a mixed bag in terms of job growth.

I'll wait to see what October's number look like before I believe the jobless recover is over. This makes me somewhat optimistic, however.

[boots]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You cannot prove a opinion wrong. It's your opinion it's not true.

I never once claimed it wasn't POSSIBLE. I said it usually means that less people are unemployed.

That's not an opinion. Its an assertion of fact. One can demonstrate it true by looking at the trends in jobless rate vs unemployment claims.

Lets see some numbers, zimphire. If you're right, it should be easy enough to find the numbers.

[theolein]

I would be happy if the number of jobs in the US started picking up, not only for those in the US who don't have jobs now, but for me over here as well as the US economy has a strong effect on our economy and the whole global economy in fact, and it might improve my chances of finding a job.

I readilly admit I personally dislike Bush. To be honest, it's a gut feeling. He just gives me a kind of slimey feeling and reminds me of a man I once knew who was a child molester, all overly friendly model citizen up front but a monster out back, and yes, I know one shouldn't base one's judgements of people on past aquaintances, but I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one who does this.

However, if his policy of tax cuts and increased government spending work then I would be willing to admit that he has had some good ideas and true economic common sense. I still don't know how the national debt issue could be cleared up, considering that both China and Japan own a large amount of US treasury bonds and could possibly call in those debts in futue, but we'll see.

For what it's worth I think that most of the democratic opposition is pretty useless. The only one who seems to have some, if any, integrity, is Howard Dean, but I think people would be scared of his supposed leftist attitudes.

The one American politician I like, McCain, will probably have an uphill battle winning any fight against the clown in the whitehouse.

I would in fact be surprised if Bush lost the election in 2004. He seems pretty skilled at focusing attention on on foreign issues when problems at home arise and vice versa, and it seems as if most americans still think Saddam was in one of those cockpits on 11/9/2001. So we'll probably be in for another round of robber baron evangelical nation building from 2004 to 2008.

Here's to cheering the pretzels on in round 2 of the pretzel vs. GW contest.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by boots:
Mixed news in job growth for November.

The government reported the creation of 126,000 new jobs in November.

However, 171,000 jobs were cut in November (heard this number on the radio, so it isn't an official government statistic.)

So net job growth in November was -54,000.

That sounds bad, but the previous two months of the government report have been revised to show higher job growth than previously reported...so it's still a mixed bag in terms of job growth.

I'll wait to see what October's number look like before I believe the jobless recover is over. This makes me somewhat optimistic, however.

Am I the only one who doesnt understand this post? After 10 days you are claiming, from two different unstated sources that we have lost jobs in november yet you dont even know what october's numbers look like?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Am I the only one who doesnt understand this post? After 10 days you are claiming, from two different unstated sources that we have lost jobs in november yet you dont even know what october's numbers look like?

nvaughn, about your sig...that's a deliberate misquote that was bad enough when used in a thread, if you are going to use it in your sig, I'm going to have to report you for abuse. Please stop perpetuating a malicious lie.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm going to have to report you for abuse.

Come on, Lerk, let the fella have some fun. I'm really starting to enjoy the sig-smacktalk that has been going on lately. I'd like to see everyone take the gloves off and run this MF'er into the ground with a quickness. Not much discussion going on any more.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
nvaughn, about your sig...that's a deliberate misquote that was bad enough when used in a thread, if you are going to use it in your sig, I'm going to have to report you for abuse. Please stop perpetuating a malicious lie.

PM me if you feel the need to quote my posts without directly responding to anything within them. If I'm feeling nice, I might actually reply to you. I'm not perpetuating any lies, FWIW.

[Spliffdaddy]

Using misquoted statements found on an internet forum as your signature?

That's the third prong. I just know it.

PS, pooka

you rock.