308,000

308,000 new jobs in the month of march
Unemployment did go up .1, which is intresting but all the same 308,000 non farm jobs.
This job market is just bad.

[Jazuela]

It's funny how the statistics can be skewed to appease the masses. In Connecticut, the state was boasting about how unemployment is on the decline. Unemployment -is- going down a bit. But they fail to mention a very significant factor:

Many people (such as myself) who were on unemployment have run out of benefits and are ineligible to reapply until June. The batch of unemployed people prior to me were allowed to get extensions, my batch wasn't. Those people who did get extensions will be running out soon as well.

And so - it isn't merely that there are less unemployed people. It's that there are more people who aren't allowed to collect unemployment. We're still out of jobs, and another major corporation (Pitney-Bowes) has shipped a whole bunch of its operations overseas. Pratt-Whitney's going the same route, as have dozens of other major corporations.

The last remaining privately owned bank in New Haven was just purchased by a national conglomeration and is hitting the scandal sheets left and right. The big worry is customer service and local sponsorship. We want Connecticut money to remain in Connecticut, but because of all this globalization stuff, it ain't happening. And then there's Yale, which owns a HUGE sector of New Haven real estate and isn't paying taxes on any of it, trying to own even more. That's less money for the coffers, which means tax increases for those who live in the city. That also means more people who can't even afford the jobs they have, let alone the people who aren't employed at all.

It's nuts, and "statistics" will always favor the people creating them.

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
308,000 new jobs in the month of march
Unemployment did go up .1, which is intresting but all the same 308,000 non farm jobs.
This job market is just bad.

It's really great that you heard that nice big number and posted it up here for all of us. It's almost like you had something to do with it.

You convieniently forgot to cite the source of where this number can be found.

I also doubt that you understand the pros and cons of the data collection methods used to reach this number. I'm sure your dad, or someone on the radio said, "Household survey-- good. Establishment survey-- bad", and that was good enough for you.

71,000 of the jobs are construction. Manual labor is not exactly a career path job.

27,000 are in food service. This means, "Would you like fries with that?"

You forgot to post this part of the labor report.

____________________
Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force
totaled 1.6 million in March, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted
as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 514,000 discouraged workers in March,
also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the
marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because
they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million margin-
ally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or family
responsibilities. (See table A-13.)
_____________________________

Here's the full report.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Edine, you make a great cheerleader. Really.

they expected only 125,000 jobs including construction and food service.
308,000 is a very large diffrence.
and if you pay attention to the stock market you can see that they like that number

[Jazuela]

Unless the stock market changes my quarterly Water Company dividend, or offers me a local job as a part-time receptionist, the only thing that matters to me about the stock market will be the price of oil. And that's gone up, which sucks. I don't see how a net gain of 308,000 "not unemployed" persons can possibly benefit me.

Especially when you consider that these "not unemployed" persons don't mean that they are "employed." Not unemployed means employed, OR anyone who isn't actively employed. This also includes people who are full-time students, housewives, full-time at-home caretakers for their families, and anyone else who isn't looking for work. There are also people who are wealthy enough that they don't have to work. These are also "not unemployed" persons.

I am unemployed. Not "not employed" or "not unemployed" Unemployed, meaning, I WOULD be employed if I could be, but I can't, so I'm not. I don't qualify for the jobs that are available, and the jobs that I qualify for are not available in my area.

Fortunately hubby makes a good income and can support us both, but we're on a tight budget. Our standard of living has dropped significantly, and we're considered a "middle-class" household. Many of use in the "middle-class" income range are in the same boat and it's going to get worse as more companies ship departments overseas.

as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey.<<not looking for work hence not unemployed>> There were 514,000 discouraged workers in March,
also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the
marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because
they believed no jobs were available for them. <<<<keyword believed, to lazy and or unwilling to take the work that is out there>>>The other 1.1 million margin-ally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or family<<<1.1million people who are not actively looking for work>>


You should pay closer attention to what you post. This states basically that 1.6 million people were not even looking for work in the last month. What you neglect to pay attention to is the fact that the job market just went up 308,000 jobs and if this trend continues that 1.6 million will all be employed in 5.5 months.

[Parkbandit]

I know plenty of guys in the construction field that make a very good living. It may not be a career path to YOU, but it is a career path.

Sure, we would all want to be CEOs, but in reality... that's not possible.

No what happened is there are 308,000 more jobs than there were last month, not 308,000 more not employed people 308,000 more working people.<net gain of jobs is up 308,000 that means jobs created minus jobs lost = 308,000> and Jazuela why don't you go get a job in retail if it is that important, you will have extra income and you can mostly set your own hours, instead of complaining about not having a job.

[Jazuela]

Why don't I get a job in retail? Good question. Ask McDonald's, ask the 3 supermarkets in the area, ask the 4 clothing stores and 8 shoe stores I've called. Ask Hollywood Video, who said I qualified and even interviewed me for a job. Ask the 4 dunkin donuts in the 3 towns I've driven to and filled out applications in. Ask the drycleaner's that had the ad in the paper. Ask the garden shop I went to yesterday.

In otherwords, I am trying, and have been trying since July, to find employement in retail, in secretarial work, in part time, full time, temp, and seasonal -light- physical work (since I can't do heavy physical work). I can't exactly pull a gun on a shop-owner and make him hire me, ya know? Most of them tell me I'm overqualified and say I'll just leave when something better comes along.

Do you have any idea how annoying that is to hear? I'm 43 years old for chrissakes. If I was gonna get something "better" don't they think I'd have it by now? I just want a nice little no-brainer job where I can serve the customer and put on a smile for them and give them product in exchange for coin. Nothing would please me more, because I already did the corporate thing and it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

I even tried running my own business, but after 3 years of barely bringing in a profit I closed shop and now do aromatherapy strictly as a hobby.

Don't assume that I haven't tried to find a retail job, just because I have qualifications for "better." That's what all the retail people are assuming, which is probably why none of them will hire me.

so dont give them a full resume its not hard to get a retail job,l if you have been turned down that much no doubt there is a issue with you.

[Parkbandit]

Where in CT do you live?

[Tsa`ah]

Read the front page of the Wall Street journal. So many companies are outsourcing right now that it's rather sad.

Couple that with the fact already mentioned (unemployment rate only counts those collecting benefits, not those who are no longer eligible) and our actual unemployment rate is astronomical.

New jobs created? No, only the seasonal jobs that come every year around this season. The same jobs that will be gone again in late August - early September.

I'm sorry, but you're buying propaganda.

[Jazuela]

New Haven County. The issue isn't with me. People are lining up to get interviews, but most of these places aren't hiring. I go there anyway and ask just in case. The couple of places that did actually interview me, expected me to account for the past 10 years of my life. They can see that I'm a middle-aged adult, and I'm not about to lie to them and tell them I didn't go to college just so I can get a job. My education is a part of who I am, and there's no way I can possibly hide it even if I wanted to.

If you've only been in the work force for 5 or even 10 years it's easy to fudge what you've done, and what you haven't done. If you've been in the workforce for over 20 years, it's not that easy, nor practical to even try.

Mostly though, these places just plain aren't hiring. They don't have "Help wanted" signs outside their windows, they aren't posting help wanted ads in the paper. In last Sunday's Register there were 3 retail positions available. Two were open for day shift, the third I couldn't apply to because it was 3rd shift and I have responsibilities at home that prevent me from working a 3rd shift job.

By the time I applied for the other two jobs (the next day) they had already received over 3 dozen applications EACH. One of them (A Dunkin Donuts) picked someone who had more experience at Dunkin Donuts than I had (I worked for one around 15 years ago). The other one needed someone who could double in the stockroom lifting boxes, which I can't do.

THREE jobs in the sunday paper for retail. There was only ONE job for a secretary but it was a corporate position that required management experience, which I don't have.

If I was a nurse, I'd be all set with dozens of job offers. But I'm not a nurse, so that isn't an option.

[Tendarian]

New jobs created? No, only the seasonal jobs that come every year around this season. The same jobs that will be gone again in late August - early September

If its seasonal jobs that get made every year why didnt they project 300,000 new jobs? Why did they only project 100,000? Why is there such a need for seasonal jobs this year over others?

[longshot]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I know plenty of guys in the construction field that make a very good living. It may not be a career path to YOU, but it is a career path.

Sure, we would all want to be CEOs, but in reality... that's not possible.


This is a good point. I was a little drastic in my portrayal of construction workers.

I read an article awhile back in the New York Times about job growth in construction, and the positions were really shitty labor jobs at less than ten an hour done by immigrants who couldn't speak English. I'd post the link, but you have to pay for archived articles from the NYT. I'm not saying that these people are indicative of all construction workers, but it's possible that much of these new jobs are similar to the ones depicted in the article.

Edine,

You tout this grand economic recovery, but fail to realize that many who want to work cannot find jobs. After a certain amount of time, they are not counted as unemployed. Even if they look or not.

A former executive might not want to pick up a shovel and lay cement at 15% of his former pay. I understand the man on the radio that tells you how to think says he is "lazy" though.

By the way, where did you find this great number? You never answered my question.

[Jazuela]

Because a lot of companies shipped their customer service overseas, opening up temporary positions here in the states. That's how outsourcing works. Get rid of a department, but then hire temps and seasonals to cover the workload until the overseas department is fully settled in.

There's also the matter of early retirement options. Those puppies cull the herd like nobody's business. You offer early retirement to your people, and you will inevitably get MORE people leaving than you actually wanted to leave. So now you have to fill positions that you wanted to remain filled, but are now empty because too many people opted out. Those positions are usually filled with temps, who work for less money and no benefits, thus saving the corporation with millions of dollars yearly.

[TheEschaton]

So, 308,000, plus the 20,000 in January, plus the number of jobs in February.....


hmmmmmm, looks like the Bush camp is gonna have trouble delivering those promised 2 million jobs.


-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Tendarian
If its seasonal jobs that get made every year why didnt they project 300,000 new jobs? Why did they only project 100,000? Why is there such a need for seasonal jobs this year over others?

I would say 100,000 seasonal jobs is an extremely conservative number for seasonal construction labor alone. Factor in seasonal agricultural labor and I'd say 200,000 (combined with construction) is rather conservative.

These jobs generally go to familiar people. The people that were at these jobs this time last year. No construction firm is going to hire a former computer assembler over Lefty the carpenter. A corporate Ag company isn't going to take on the former check out crew from K-mart over John Boy who has been on a tractor since he cut teeth.

Without the source of this figure we have no way to accept it's credibility. If it's from Youth for Bush care of the White House, well I'll write it off as more political BS that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Jazuela]

Heh I'll be looking for an acceptance letter from Bush in my mailbox. Though, I don't think I'm thrilled about the prospect of being an intern. I have an aversion to cigars, you see....

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Don't hate the companies that outsource, they do it to survive. You want to change the fact that we outsource to another country that does things cheaper, faster and with a more educated labor force? Perhaps you should look at import and export taxes, and the laws governing them.

AOL outsources, and performance (and lets be clear here -- performance in average talk times, productivity, customer satisfaction and cost) is as good or better than CONUS labor forces. So... the question is, do US employee's have a bitch, or are overseas employee's simply better?

I'm all for competition in the workplace, it improves everything. I think the problem with America is, we have skewed taxes on importing and exporting, in relation to countrys that tax the hell out of us.

[Tsa`ah]

Bush Sr .... Free Trade ... The first death throws of the American economy.

[Jazuela]

My beef is with local companies experiencing hostile takeovers and then dismantled or driven out of the country or to other states.

I worked at SNET for 4 years. During the first year, SBC bought us and insisted we would continue to be the local phone company, with all its local charm and the "Let your Fingers Do the Walking" trademark.

Then they started sending the letters. Early retirement and departmental "reorganizations" resulting in entire departments eliminated and absorbed by the Corp. offices in Texas.

When I called 411 pre-SBC, and asked "You know that mexican place in New Haven next to the Bootery, that makes those awesome margaritas?" The operator would know exactly which one I meant and would give me the phone number within seconds.

Now, I'm lucky if the operator even knows that New Haven is two words, not one. Shipping customer service overseas and even to other states does -not- improve customer service. It dehumanizes the entire process and leaves the customer feeling neglected and uncared for.

As a customer, I want to know that my monthly bill is going for improvements to my local service and to pay the salaries of my fellow residents. I might not be able to pick and choose a car based on where it's built, or whose pockets it lines. But for a service that is advertised as a local entity, I feel I should have the right to know that the local entity is benefiting from my payment and not some corporate suit in another state who doesn't even know the names of its own top management.

As an employee, I want to know that I am serving MY customers. Not someone else's customers. I am extremely protective of my customers when I am employed, and want the absolute best for them that their money can buy. It is why, when I work retail, my customers ask for me specifically and will get in my longer line instead of going to the shorter line. Because they know I know them by name, by face, can deliver service to them promptly, efficiently, and have them leave being glad to have been to my store and hoping to come back soon.

People overseas don't give a shit about us here in the States. Nor should they, they don't know us from a hole in the wall. And that's what's wrong with overseas customer service.

[TheEschaton]

The problem with outsourcing (and there are studies that show that customer service is better at outsourced locations, if a bit harder to understand) is that it is a fundamentally capitalist thing to do, and people don't understand how to combat it.

The only way it can be fixed is if there is a global minimum wage, global safety standards, global minimum benefits, etc, that are actually enforced. That way, the cost is the same, and the only reason a company would move offshore is if it actually was more productive to do so (IE, better product, better service). If you want a globalization that works, that's what you MUST do. Forget the import/export stuff, that's a bad solution to a bad problem.

It's globalization: make all part of the labor process global.

The problem with this is, the idea is fundamentally socialist (to protect the worker), and capitalists everywhere would scream about having to pay more than the pennies a day they pay now.

A global minimum wage would also work to stabilize currency. I know now that 1 U.S. dollar equals roughly 50 rupees (Indian currency, like $50). But the prices are much different, 50 Rs. would buy the equivalent of about $12.50 here. So, Indians are completely willing to work for 50 Rs. an hour, (which, adjusted, is double our minimum wage), and AMerican countries are willing to pay $1 an hour for their services.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

You forget the other half TheE.

Benefits, zero to nothing.
Vacation pay, zero to nothing.
Unemployment insurance, nothing.
Social Security contributions, nothing.
Retirement contributions, nothing to next to nothing.

The biggie. NO TAXES ON REVENUE MADE OFF SHORE.

Illinois is currently debating legislation that will amend tax laws to include income earned from outsourced divisions.

If we start taxing the earnings from outsourced um... sources, our disappearing jobs my slowly make a come back. That and kill or heavily sanction the FTA.

[Jazuela]

HarmNone I'm putting the "blame" on you for this - just as I was commisserating and enjoying my little pity-party, NatureWorks called and asked me to come in for an interview Monday.

It's a seasonal part-time position at a garden shop that specializes in organic horticulture. RIGHT up my alley, which is why I put the application in yesterday.

And now I'm off to a hardware store that is looking for a part-time day-shift front end type person to work with customers and cashiering. No heavy lifting, only one weekend-day per week required, dealing with customers, not -too- far from home so even minimum wage would cover the driving expense (at $2.00 per gallon it really -does- matter)

Why do I blame it on you? Because who else would send out "Get that girl a job for crying out loud" vibes to the universe?

SO - thanks.

[HarmNone]

Hee! I just knew that "get that girl a job" candle was sparking something up! :D

Good luck, hon! I'll keep the candle burning!

HarmNone, speaking to the universe, one candle at a time

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Light a candle for me pls, I'm having a shitty day.

[HarmNone]

Consider it done, SMH. A large "getting better every minute" candle is burning just for you! :)

HarmNone, alerting the fire department

[Galleazzo]

I got to laugh.

Outsourcing is evil? Go look at the computer you're on. Made in China and Malaysia and Thailand and places like that, right? What about your car? All of you buy American make? Your TV? Your CD player? Your XBox? How many of your goodies are American? Go to the florist to buy some roses this time of year? They're from Israel; one of my guys just ran a fresh load from Logan to a couple outlets. Israeli roses are cheaper than California.

You bought foreign because it's cheaper, is why. Even when every time you didn't buy American someone like you lost a job.

And maybe you'd do the same now.

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
I got to laugh.

Outsourcing is evil? Go look at the computer you're on. Made in China and Malaysia and Thailand and places like that, right? What about your car? All of you buy American make? Your TV? Your CD player? Your XBox? How many of your goodies are American? Go to the florist to buy some roses this time of year? They're from Israel; one of my guys just ran a fresh load from Logan to a couple outlets. Israeli roses are cheaper than California.

You bought foreign because it's cheaper, is why. Even when every time you didn't buy American someone like you lost a job.

And maybe you'd do the same now.

I hope you're not referring to me. I didn't say outsourcing is "evil," first of all. I don't think it's necessary in many cases, but that hardly constitutes "evil" in my book.

As for your examples, you are referring to foreign companies. I'm talking about -local- companies that ship various departments overseas. Such as the LOCAL phone company's customer service department. Such as the LOCAL bank allowing corporate invstors to take over and completely eliminate entire departments in favor of corporate departments in other states. Such as what was once a LOCAL airplane manufacturer that has US Government contracts turning over enormous portions of their operation to other countries and eliminating -thousands- of jobs in a single year in the state that has supported them for decades.

Our state has been home to many major corporations over the years, have given tax breaks and incentives to keep these companies here, and to encourage more growth. And they slapped us in the face when they said "we don't care about your employment rate, we don't care how many millions of dollars you've poured into our business to keep us running. We're moving out, so tough noogies."

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
Outsourcing is evil? Irresponsible outsourcing is. Capitalism is not a moral philosophy. Something that makes money isn't necessarily morally good, etc. etc.

[TheEschaton]

Capitalism is not a moral philosophy.

I'd go so far as to say Capitalism is morally bankrupt, IE, that one cannot be moral, and be a true capitalist.

And I don't think outsourcing is evil. I put forth my argument for how one would move jobs back to the U.S. I think outsourcing is fun. I ended up calling Dell about a week ago, for some piddly shit, and spoke to someone who knows my 2nd cousin. He recognized my last name, and, since there's not many Christians in India, he asked. Ha. Not bad for a country of 1.1 billion.

-TheE-

[Galleazzo]

Our state has been home to many major corporations over the years, have given tax breaks and incentives to keep these companies here, and to encourage more growth. And they slapped us in the face when they said "we don't care about your employment rate, we don't care how many millions of dollars you've poured into our business to keep us running. We're moving out, so tough noogies."
That there in the trade is called "mincing words."

What I'm talking about is that if we're going to yell at companies for outsourcing to save a buck, yell at yourselves for buying cheaper foreign goods to save a buck. Does it somehow not count if Connecticut manufacturers lay people off because people are buying from Malaysia, but it's suddenly evil if Connecticut software companies outsource to India because that's what they think they need to do to stay afloat?

Or does it not count only when it's someone else's job in some other state? That toaster you bought that was made in Korea? Well, you could've bought US and saved someone's job in Pittsburgh. Except the Korean model was $5 cheaper, so of course you got it. So would I, so would anyone, who wouldn't? Who even notices any more?

[Jazuela]

I'd like to know what products are 100% american made.

Paper from paper mills? Nope, because they use japanese and german equipment to turn wood to pulp to paper.

American cars? Nope, most of the components are from overseas, except for the ones that have american parts that are assembled overseas.

Toasters? Heh - imports, alla'them.

There are some luxury items hand-crafted in the USA, but the majority of us common middle-class types just plain can't afford it. How can we, when we're ALL OUT OF JOBS?

Don't blame everything on people not buying american. There aren't enough american-made products for the average consumer in the first place. I drive a Ford, which used to be 100% american made, but now they're produced with foreign parts. Hell, even my shower stall is only partly made in the USA. The rest is from Sweden or some such.

It's a viscious cycle, Gaz. I'd LOVE to buy american, but the only american-made products I really need, I can't afford because they're luxury items. I -do- buy local produce however. I avoid out-of-season produce, and when I do need it (such as winter tomatoes) I'll either buy hydroponic (WHEN I can afford it - at $3.99 a pound it's a huge stretch) or I"ll get the ones shipped up from Florida.

As for Oranges, well - when the USA can make oranges as delicious as the ones they grow in Israel, I'll buy American oranges. Til then, I like the Israeli ones. Jaffa just out-does every other market when it comes to oranges. Conversely, I have my mom ship up grapefruits from her yard, because florida grapefruits are the best in the world, and hers are free, which makes them even better.

Even when SNET was a local phone company, they got a lot of their technology and telephone components from overseas. It didn't stop anyone from loving the local service, and didn't stop SNET from remaining a local company.

Now that they're no longer the local phone company, many peple in the state are hoping some day that there will be competition so we can boot them the hell out of Connecticut and get back to home-town service.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Jazuela
I'd like to know what products are 100% american made.Um, Hulk Hogan? He does have the red, white, and blue running through his veins.
Now that they're no longer the local phone company, many peple in the state are hoping some day that there will be competition so we can boot them the hell out of Connecticut and get back to home-town service. Why doesn't anyone tell me these things? :( I had no idea SNET was the devil. Cingular, obviously, but SNET?

Say, Edine, is Bush doing anything to promote global work standards so we won't ship jobs over to Jeff the Ecuadorian who works for 20 cents a week? I think I remember Clinton doing some kinda NAFTA thing, or maybe he was against that, hard to remember.

[Warriorbird]

:chuckle: Real easy for Edine to comment when he doesn't have to worry.

[TheEschaton]

NAFTA does nothing to set global standards, Latrin. It was just a bunch of neo-liberal nonsense.


Basically, it allowed companies to up and run to Mexico to make their product much cheaper and bring it back here virtually import-tax-free.

Mexico agreed cause it thought it would bring business to Mexico (which it did, but it didn't jump start their economy like they wanted to), while the U.S. agreed to it because the capitalists like it, and oddly enough, the Dems thought it would encourage competition, in some way. The fact is, there could never be any competition at all.

I've been against NAFTA as long as I've been old enough to understand it, and it was largely crafted by Dems.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
NAFTA does nothing to set global standards, Latrin. It was just a bunch of neo-liberal nonsense.Ok, so is Bush doing anything GOOD about global standards? Seeing as how Clinton dropped the ball bigtime, apparently.

<against NAFTA>
It is not our place to raise golbal work standards, If jonny El Salvador is able to make 20cents a hour that he could not before, more power to Jonny.

[Sean]

I think thats easy to say since you work in a profession that can't really be outsourced on the same level as most. With the exception of the internet that is.

[TheEschaton]

Ok, so is Bush doing anything GOOD about global standards? Seeing as how Clinton dropped the ball bigtime, apparently.

Nope. Bush, if you haven't noticed, isn't really about global diplomacy.


And Edine, you continue to amaze me. You seem to have no idea of how the world works. If Johnny makes only 20 cents, he's gonna get work every time before Joe American. The only way to combat that, is to work for global work standards, if you want to stay in a capitalist system yet not complete lose your manufacturing base overseas, like we have.

Not to mention, we should be pushing them for the pure fact that they're humane.

-TheE-

TheE, The same thing happened in the 90's with Japan, I do not fear that the American Economic machine wont survive, perhaps I am more optimistic about our countries abilities than you.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by The Edine]

[TheEschaton]

And you don't think Japan succeeded? Hell, everything I'm using right now to communicate with you was made in Japan.

My T.V. is made in Japan.

Basically all the electrical devices in my house are....you guessed it, Japanese.

-TheE-

Their economy has been flat for the last ten years, ours has grown by leaps and bounds.

go back to school and take a economics course that will involve the asian markets, before you get into this argument with me.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
go back to school and take a economics course that will involve the asian markets, before you get into this argument with me. I took an economics course. You're wrong. Anything that puts up barriers creates deadweight losses, which are always bad.

Bush is big on Texas-style diplomacy. Anyone here been watching Smackdown recently? Bradshaw's a good example. :D Or should I say JBL?

Im wrong about the Japanese economy? Im wrong that they have had FLAT growth for the last ten years? I'm wrong that America in the last 10 years has grown by leaps and bounds?
O.K. sure.

Edit: that is what i said in my post, nothing more nothing less, except that I am confident in the American Economy's ability to find new and inventive ways to make money IE our little creation of the Internet.
And right now our work with nano tec.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by The Edine]

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
TheE, The same thing happened in the 90's with Japan, I do not fear that the American Economic machine wont survive, perhaps I am more optimistic about our countries abilities than you.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by The Edine]

I doubt you have any clue as to why the economy in Japan has been stagnant.

You bring up an economics class that you took as evidence that you have a clue as to what you are talking about... what class would that be?

We know that your schooling is going so well, if you are even still in school, that you are going into the military.

Dad doesn't want to throw away anymore money on your "education", does he?

So, please, enlighten us about what you learned in your class.

Also, you never answered my question. So, I will ask it again.

Where did you first hear of your 308,000 number?

What you fail to understand is that even if the overall level of GDP grows, and America "makes" money, it does very little if the new equilibrium established leaves millions and millions of people out of work.

I know, I know... they are all lazy, right?

Just like this guy.

The following post was taken from vault.com, a white collar career board.

----------------------------------
have the same problem. I have an MBA was recruited into the venture capital business (IT, semiconductors and telco focus) in 2000 and spent 2 years there until the markets died.

Managed public and private investments, did M&As, was involved in 17 transactions and of these 2 have already been acquired and 3 have had follow on financings. I led 2 of the 17 myself – 14 were equity and 3 venture debt.

After 18 months of looking I have basically given up looking for a job. There are none to be had. The market is so saturated its almost impossible to get an interview. Also the guys who I use to work with (all close friends at the time) have basically stopped answering any calls and won’t help me in my search.

Anyway, now angry and confused I have moved on. So now I act as a CFO or Corp Dev guy to startups or early stage companies. I have a software company (own 10%) that I raised money for from angels and I raised venture financing for a biotech toolmaker. I am now starting to develop a new network (which is working slowly) because the old one is toast.

Would like to do something else or would like to make money a little more consistently. Never thought after finishing an MBA, I would be worse off than when I started.

If any one has ideas I would appreciate the help.

--------------------

Go tell this person to lay brick and wait tables.

Remember to pick up your cheerleader outfit from the cleaners.

[Warriorbird]

No Edine, you're not wrong about the Japanese economy. You're just using the argument tactic known as "straw men."

Longshot turn on any American news outlet and you will see 308,000 new Non-Farm jobs plastered all over the TV.
And in relation to my education, I from the start have paid for my own education, and have purposely not taken out one loan to do so, I pride myself on my ability to work and pay for it myself. I am sorry if unlike you, I did not need my family to pay for my schooling and that I out of High School went into a profession that has fair enough pay.
When we look at the American unemployment rate you again need to look at the worlds unemployment, of Europe's average unemployment rate 8.9% or so if I remember from a little debate we had a while ago. America's average unemployment rate over the last 30 years? 6.9%. We currently are at 5.7%. It does not add up to me. I am sorry we see things differently in that aspect
And in the future if you wish to get any form of response to any of your posts, leave the insults out of them, or is that the only way you are able to feel better about yourself and your arguments.


Warriorbird feel free to show me how much the Japanese economy has grown. I am confident that you will have trouble finding such outside of inflation.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by The Edine]

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by The Edine]

[HarmNone]

In order to really judge the impact of these 380,000 "new" jobs, I would want to know in what sectors of the economy they are found, whether they are part-time or full-time (benefits or no benefits), and whether they are temporary or permanent (retail usually hires in the spring and fires in the fall). Without that knowledge, the numbers mean little from my perspective.

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

Edine, once again, you are being duplicitous (du·plic·i·tous adj.
Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech).

The European unemployment rates count EVERYONE. EVERYONE who is over the age of 18. Even if they're disabled. Even if they don't receive unemployment benefits. Hell, I think they even count retired people - so that they know HOW MUCH OF THE GIVEN POPULATION IS UNEMPLOYED AT ONE GIVEN TIME.

The United States, in an effort to spin unemployment, changed their standards, to include only those people who receive unemployment benefits.

Include everyone, like Europe is, and see what our rate would be. Higher than 8.9%, I'm willing to bet.

-TheE-

TheE aside from what 3 people have said here please show how Europe calculates their unemployment.

and you are being duplicitous, think logicly, Id say there are at least 10% of people in america and eurpoe that are retired, come on if that was the case the unemployment would be upwards of 20-30% in every country, what about stay at home moms? come on.

[TheEschaton]

Here you go:

http://stats.bls.gov/mfp/mprsor93.pdf

I suggest you look at page 5, Table 2, where the unemployment rates of 9 different countries are normalized to the U.S.'s U-5 standards. I hope you notice that in U-7, the broadest definition of unemployment, the U.S. is higher than all the European countries.

In other words: YOU GOT SERVED.

-TheE-
P.S. I hope a U.S. gov't bureau website is good enough for you.

[Miss X]

I was under the impression that in my part of Europe (UK) the unemployment rate refers to those currently claiming Job Seekers Allowance/Income Support rather than everyone who isn't technically "employed".

I don't think house wives/husbands, retired people, disabled people etc count as officially unemployed in our national statistics unless they are claiming a job seekers benefit. I could be wrong, but I'm sure this is what I remember when I was studying work and unemployment during my degree, although that was a couple of years ago now. :)

[Edited on 3-4-04 by Miss X]

Try to give me numbers NOT from 1993 TheE
Really why not 2003 numbers?

:points at Chica's post:

[TheEschaton]

I knew that would be your complaint, Edine. The standards haven't changed, the link was merely to show that the rates are calculated differently.


Edited to add: In fact, I think these numbers are even more damning, considering all the jobs we've lost since then, when this shows the rates were comparable to begin with.

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by TheEschaton]

find me numbers from 2003 TheE
not 1993 and then I will consider them important, something displaying numbers from over a decade ago means little to me.

Edit: I note you ignore what Chica said.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by The Edine]

[TheEschaton]

I hope you also notice the UK doesn't follow the same standards as the continental Europe. It never has.

Furthermore, how is the data being 10 years old invalidate it? It merely shows that while Europe reported "higher" unemployment rates in 1993, it was a case of using a different standard of unemployment. The same continues today. In terms of your age, maybe 10 years is a long time (though you seem to be at the same maturity level), but 10 years, in gov't, is not a long time at all.

It's unemployment rate is also comparable to ours. But the 9.whatever% number always flouted as "Europe's unemployment" is an average of the unemployment of European countries, where the UK is at the bottom end.

Imagine if we calculated our unemployment as "North America's unemployment rate." Ha.

-TheE-

Also oh great and all knowing TheE the unemployment Rate In the United States in March of 1993 when that report was made was at 7.1%... not 5.7 like it is now.

[TheEschaton]

Actually, unemployment is currently at 6%, and unemployment in '93 was 5.3%, by our standards. Can't you READ?

Edited to add: Or are you reading a website trying to discredit Bill Clinton?

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by TheEschaton]

now going off of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development website who uses standardised numbers...
well lets just give you something to look at TheE aka, Mr. Google.

http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,2340,en_2649_201185_29492634_119690_1_1_1,00.htm l

The graph may be easier for you to understand, and the first graph has america compaired to other states.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/63/29590575.pdf

[TheEschaton]

Again, if you could read, you would notice the table is headed: "Percentage of civilian labour force". That is the U.S. measure, and in this case, yes, the European rates will be higher. The European standard is calculated differently, and if the U.S. calculated as such, and everyone else was standardized to THAT standard, the rates would be comparable, at best, for the United States. At worst, not good.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Take a look at this website, off the bureau of labor statistics website:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

What this says at the bottom, is that only 31% of the unemployed people in this country have been unemployed for less than 5 weeks.

Then, look at the bureau's definition of unemployment, found at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5:

Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

At that rate, even LESS than the 31% would be counted towards the unemployment rate. If you factor in a longer duration, LIKE EUROPE DOES, that number would quickly rise.

As a final note, look at this nice pretty website http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm which gives the unemployment rates and whatnot (apparently the annual average is 6.0%, my bad) but also gives you 10 year stats if you click on the green icon. Funny thing is, unemployment spiked shortly before the 92 elections - and then dropped for eight straight years...until Bush II took office, where it has steadily increased.

That's some Reaganomics for you, eh?

-TheE-

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Again, if you could read, you would notice the table is headed: "Percentage of civilian labour force". That is the U.S. measure, and in this case, yes, the European rates will be higher. The European standard is calculated differently, and if the U.S. calculated as such, and everyone else was standardized to THAT standard, the rates would be comparable, at best, for the United States. At worst, not good.

-TheE-
Oh but if you could read and read how it is calculated, you would notice that they use the same standard for every country not different standards for different countries

Yay go TheE, make yourself look foolish talking about my reading when it is you who seems not to pay attention to things
like 1993\2003 ect. come on

Note what is below:



The uniform application of the definitions results in estimates that are more internationally comparable than those based on national definitions. National unemployment data in some countries only include persons registered at government labour offices. Under the ILO definition, persons without work who are seeking employment through other means can also be classified as unemployed and registrants can be excluded if they worked or were not available for work. The standardised unemployment rates shown here are calculated as the number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the civilian labour force (i.e the unemployed plus those in civilian employment). The standardised unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.

hmm recession in 1992 followed by 8 years of economic growth followed by the start of a rescission in 2000 under Clinton, really you make no argument aside from what is already known.

308,000 jobs in one month
A net gain of over 500,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2004
if the trend continues there will be 2million by the end of the year
Only time will tell.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
Europe's average unemployment rate 8.9% or so if I remember from a little debate we had a while ago. America's average unemployment rate over the last 30 years? 6.9%. We currently are at 5.7%. It does not add up to me. I am sorry we see things differently in that aspect Europe determines unemployment differently, dude. Very much so. What year the data that TheEschaton showed you is from is really irrelevant.

[Jazuela]

I haven't read the .gov docs, but I've been through the unemployment hoop plenty. So, if they're using Dept. of Labor Unemployment data as a measuring stick, you should remember this:

If you worked for 4 hours or more in any given week, you are considered "employed."

So if you get a temp job for 1 day at minimum wage, you lose your "unemployed" status until you re-file the week after. You are still eligible for partial unemployment payment since your "case" isn't closed, but you will not get any more checks after that week until you reopen the initial claim.

In addition, the rules and regs for unemployment vary from state to state, so in some states you might need to be employed at least 20 hours to be considered "employed" and other states might consider just one hour of payment as "employed."

[longshot]

The Edine is The retarded.

[HarmNone]

Edine is simply awash with patriotism. That is not necessarily a bad thing. While his politics may not suit me, I can respect his right to believe the way he chooses. Hopefully, he can respect my right to believe differently. I do not believe it means either of us is stupid...just that we see things very differently.

HarmNone does not believe there are any retarded people here

[Warriorbird]

I was actually suggesting that right about Japan or no, it really had little to do with the point. You seem to have made it there yourself, however.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Warriorbird]

[Edaarin]

Heh. I'm an economics major, Edine. I know a lot more about the unemployment rate and how it works than you could learn from reading papers or looking shit up online.

The total US population is around 275 million. You don't include people who are either under working age (under 16), in the military, or behind bars, so the number of people potentially available for civilian employment (the noninstitutional civilian population) is about 210 million (I'm not entirely sure the exact number, but it's very close to this).

The civilian labor force (the people either working or looking for work) was only 140 million. That means the other 70 million people were out of the labor force, not looking for work or working. The participation rate is therefore about 2/3. The UNEMPLOYMENT rate is calculated by dividing the number of people that are unemployed and LOOKING FOR WORK by the total labor force (say 10.5 million people unemployed and job searching over the labor force of 140 million), which would equal 7.5%. That's not an exact figure of what it's like now, that's just an example of how to calculate it.

Other things you have to consider: duration of unemployment (much lower in the US than overseas), where the U.S. is different from other western countries.

A problem with unemployment rate: "discouraged worker," where people give up looking for work actively but would take jobs if offered isn't taken into account. Underemployment is not taken into account.

The solution? Do what European countries do, focus on the NONEMPLOYMENT RATE. That's the ratio of the population less employment to total population [(population - employment) / population]. Their unemployment rate can be found by subtracting that ratio from 1.

Happy?

Edited for format.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Edaarin]

[Back]

The day a rabid republican puppet gets an original thought, I might vote republican. Until then? Tell me something I haven't already heard or figured out on my own.

[Hulkein]

That is a ground breaking point Backlash, I am now converted.

[TheEschaton]

Patriotism can be VERY dangerous, HN. The whole "My Country, Right or Wrong" movement is anti-democratic, anti-moral, anti-good. It cannot be seen as moral in any sense of the word, the best it can be seen as is amoral, if you view it from the natural need for self-preservation/defense.

However, to willfully be wrong for such an abstract notion as the "state"....that's fascism. Not patriotism, fascism.
It's Orwellian, doubleplus good, and it's not right. To question IS patriotic. It's the very, fundamental basis of what it is to be democracy. Which is why I was very disappointed in the anti-war people who quieted up when the war started, because we had to "support the President".

The shit people get away with in the name of patriotism - it actually makes me physically queasy.

-TheE-

[Edaarin]

To put it in your own words, I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong Edine

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
That is a ground breaking point Backlash, I am now converted.

Quit covering your ass. Excuses are for whimps.

[Hulkein]

Excuses? You just made the blanket statement that no 'rabid' republican has ever thought for himself and said anything you haven't already known. To me (and anyone sane) it was taken as a joke, I responded with one.


Edited to add - Just noticed you said puppit in the first post.. Seeing as a puppit is a definition of someone who DOESN'T think for himself, it seems like it was even more of a joke. If the person DID think for himself, they wouldn't be a puppit. Heh, whatever, was just a joke response to begin with.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Hulkein]

[HarmNone]

I agree, TheE, that patriotism gone wrong, like any other ideal gone wrong, can be dangerous. However, young people must try their wings. They must believe in something strongly. It is a part of becoming who they are. To have those beliefs belittled does not, in my opinion, abet that "becoming".

Edine and I are political opposites. We realize that, yet we can still communicate without rancor...most of the time. ;) Edine is just setting out upon the adventure that is to be his life, just as you are setting out on an adventure that is to be your life for awhile. In both cases, what you learn about yourselves and others may change you profoundly, or it may not. I am one to wait and see what develops. :)

HarmNone, the waiter and watcher

*Edited because "watcher" does, indeed, contain a "t" and I should be in bed.*



[Edited on 4-4-2004 by HarmNone]

What is there to prove wrong Edaarin, you said nothing but how to calculate it in your post.
I again refer you to the OECD information

[Edaarin]

From you:

TheE aside from what 3 people have said here please show how Europe calculates their unemployment.

and you are being duplicitous, think logicly, Id say there are at least 10% of people in america and eurpoe that are retired, come on if that was the case the unemployment would be upwards of 20-30% in every country, what about stay at home moms? come on.

From me: I told you exactly what you asked him for. How we calculate the unemployment rate, and how Europe calculates theirs. You took yours from a website, without having any idea how they came by those "standardized numbers." I took mine from a macroeconomics and an economics in foreign policy classes.

EDIT: In other words...nut up and admit you're wrong for once. Even someone as conservative as Latrinsorm isn't on your side on this one.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Edaarin]

No when calculated the same way between our state and others we still have a lower unemployment rate.

[Edaarin]

You're MISSING THE POINT. The main reasons why Europe's unemployment is so much HIGHER is not necessarily because they are performing WORSE than the United States. It's for these reasons.

1. Underemployment. People are still working below capacity.

2. Duration of unemployment. The rate at which people change jobs, drop out of the workforce, and reenter the workforce is several times FASTER in the United States than anywhere else in industrialized nations. The rate of job turnover is much higher. The average number of jobs an American holds is FIVE TIMES HIGHER over his lifetime compared to someplace like Japan.

3. Unemployment benefits. MUCH BETTER in Europe. That's why they can afford to stay unemployed for longer periods of times and hold out for a better job. Their benefits last longer, and can cover a decent cost of living.

Get it? Even if you take all those factors into account, HOW did you possibly come up with the conclusion that America's unemployment is still lower if you configure it based on Europe's methodology? 135 million working people, 210 million civilians capable of working. That means a nonemployment rate of 35.8% which is COMPARABLE to several countries.

[Hulkein]

The point of this thread is there are 300k more jobs for people to have. Who cares about the percentage number compared to other countries.. America does it this way, and we have for a while. Jobs not good enough? Well maybe if the people have that viewpoint there is a reason they're out on their ass. Honestly, there are more jobs, it's a good thing, really all that matters.

[Edaarin]

No, I refuse to accept that. I can't even count the number of times Edine has derailed threads with his refusal to let anything go, or accept that he might be wrong, especially regarding politics. He posts, and expects us to eat up whatever shit statistic he might come across without argument. If someone doesn't agree, he hounds them with post after post of "I have yet to see you prove me wrong," "Where did you prove me wrong," and so forth.

Your opinion, Edine, has 0 credibility with me. Where you find your articles, how you defend them, how you present your views. Mean nothing. I almost respect Ben's "enlightened" opinions on race more than your political views.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Edaarin]

[Scott]

Originally posted by Edaarin
No, I refuse to accept that. I can't even count the number of times Edine has derailed threads with his refusal to let anything go, or accept that he might be wrong, especially regarding politics. He posts, and expects us to eat up whatever shit statistic he might come across without argument. If someone doesn't agree, he hounds them with post after post of "I have yet to see you prove me wrong," "Where did you prove me wrong," and so forth.

Your opinion, Edine, has 0 credibility with me. Where you find your articles, how you defend them, how you present your views. Mean nothing. I almost respect Ben's "enlightened" opinions on race more than your political views.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Edaarin]

:clap:

I couldn't agree more. I don't respond to his posts because he'll pick one sentence out of an entire 10 paragraph post to point out the dumbest arguement I've ever read. Which of course will be backed with statistics from a geocities site which a 12 year old probably wrote up.

Oh, and the unemployment rate is "the rate of people too lazy to get a job."

[longshot]

Edaarin, that was beautiful.

Hulkein, while it may be great that there are new jobs, Edine needs to take his cheerleader outfit and put it in his ass. He really has no clue what he's talking about.

Edine, sorry for calling you retarded. I had been out drinking for 8 straight hours. You aren't retarded. You're just really slow and narrow minded.


Originally posted by Gemstone101

:clap:

I couldn't agree more. I don't respond to his posts because he'll pick one sentence out of an entire 10 paragraph post to point out the dumbest arguement I've ever read. Which of course will be backed with statistics from a geocities site which a 12 year old probably wrote up.

Oh, and the unemployment rate is "the rate of people too lazy to get a job."

So true.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by longshot]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Oh, and the unemployment rate is "the rate of people too lazy to get a job."

And illegal immigrants. You can't forget the illegal immigrants.

Raven

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Oh, and the unemployment rate is "the rate of people too lazy to get a job."

And illegal immigrants. You can't forget the illegal immigrants.

Raven

That too!

I just find is annoying that people say it's impossible to get a job when it's not. Hey, if you dropped out of high school, that's the reason you can't find a job. There are jobs out there for people who went to college. For the people that didn't, there are still jobs out there, just don't plan on it being a dream job.

So many people sit at home a bitch about how there is nothing out there to do. Get off your lazy ass, go find a job, they are out there.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
That too!


Oh, you were being serious. I wasn't. I'd also say you're wrong. A father of two with a college education and a degree in X and a mortgage can not support his family working at minimum wage, especially without any form of health coverage. He's not too lazy to get a job. He's trying to get something he's qualified for that he can survive on. Many do end up taking some shit hole job and hoping no one gets sick. And those people are no longer counted as unemployed which just brings the figures down.

Raven

[Hulkein]

They're not unemployed, that could be the reason. It isn't a measure of 'who has their perfect job', it's a measure of people who can make enough money to eat.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Gemstone101
That too!


Oh, you were being serious. I wasn't. I'd also say you're wrong. A father of two with a college education and a degree in X and a mortgage can not support his family working at minimum wage, especially without any form of health coverage. He's not too lazy to get a job. He's trying to get something he's qualified for that he can survive on. Many do end up taking some shit hole job and hoping no one gets sick. And those people are no longer counted as unemployed which just brings the figures down.

Raven

A person with a college education isn't going to be making minimum wage. People who don't have a college education make more then that. A prime example is my brother who never went to college. He has a wife who doesn't work, 2 kids, and lives in a $200,000 house which he OWNS.

It's not an easy road, but it's a road that's attainable. Stop being a lazy ass and get out and do something. Go to college, get a degree. If someone as stupid as my brother can live the life he lives, anyone can do it.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
If someone as stupid as my brother can live the life he lives, anyone can do it.

Your anecdotal evidence of knowing a person who can 'do it' is noted but not conclusive. My own anecdotal evidence is from tonight's news and the report featured a college educated man, formerly a white collar employee, who is now driving a cab as it's the best paying job he could manage. Fortunately, he didn't have two kids or a mortgage.

Perhaps your brother is lucky as well as stupid or all parts of the country are not the same. Whatever the case, the issue is certainly not as simple as 'they're just too lazy to work'.

Raven

[Edaarin]

I concur...there's a lot of things in this country that need reform. Welfare is at the top of my list, and unemployment benefits. There's no reason my tax dollars should go towards helping someone who isn't helping themselves.

EDIT: It sort of brings to mind a segment of Chris Rock's Bigger and Blacker. ""Shit --a black woman that got two kids, going to work every day, bustin' her ass...HATES a bitch with nine kids getting a welfare check cause they can't stop fucking! Stop fucking! STOP IT! PUT THE DICK DOWN! Put it DOWN! GET A JOB!"

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Edaarin]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Edaarin
I concur...there's a lot of things in this country that need reform. Welfare is at the top of my list, and unemployment benefits. There's no reason my tax dollars should go towards helping someone who isn't helping themselves.

Now that is inarguable. At least by me.

Raven

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Gemstone101
If someone as stupid as my brother can live the life he lives, anyone can do it.

Your anecdotal evidence of knowing a person who can 'do it' is noted but not conclusive. My own anecdotal evidence is from tonight's news and the report featured a college educated man, formerly a white collar employee, who is now driving a cab as it's the best paying job he could manage. Fortunately, he didn't have two kids or a mortgage.

Perhaps your brother is lucky as well as stupid or all parts of the country are not the same. Whatever the case, the issue is certainly not as simple as 'they're just too lazy to work'.

Raven

Umm... So let me get this straight. Since I know someone who got by and did well with his life, it means nothing. However because you saw a man on the news who has a college degree and drives a taxi, this is "evidence?" Basically you said the same thing I did, except you saw it on the news instead of knowing them?

I love the evidence....

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Gemstone101]

[Ravenstorm]

Actually, no. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that both examples are anecdotal and have the same value: one example for each end of the spectrum.

So it's likely that it's not so simple a question to answer.

Raven

[Scott]

Why is it that so many people get by while others cannot? Is it because just some people have it bad or is it because someone else is working harder to obtain something? It's always about how hard you try and how much you bust your ass to get it.

[Jazuela]

GS101: I submit as anecdotal evidence: Me.

Age: 43
Gender: female
Handicapped (hearing impaired and degenerative disk disease/spinal problem)
Education: College graduate with BS, Major -and- minor, with post-graduate studies. Also A+ Certified Computer Technician, Certified Clinical Aromatherapist, Certified Mixologist (bartending school), and dozens of college-credit independent courses in a myriad of topics, which if I wanted to, could be applied toward a Master's Degree but I'd need another course plus one thesis to complete. I take courses for their own sake, to learn, not to "get ahead."
Job history: Been working since 1977, mostly retail/customer service and secretarial/clerical. Have two published articles in newspapers.

Job needs: Due to family commitments I have to be -home- from work by 5 on Wednesdays, but I -can- work on Saturdays. Light physical labor only, and need volume control for telephone if using one is part of the job. Speaker phone and hands-free phone unit is not an option, the background noise they produce results in physical pain to ears.

Job must either pay well enough to justify the expense of driving there (I can't afford to buy a new vehicle, so my 11-year-old 20-mile/gallon SUV is it), or must be within a 10-mile radius to home if minimum wage or similar.

Unemployed since July 2003

Jobs in the secretarial field that meet my availability, as listed in the Sunday paper and on the local jobs website: 4. Status: All 4 are listed through agencies. I am already registered and on their "active" list, they tell me that the employers need someone with qualifications I don't have.

Jobs in the retail market (cashiering) that meet my availability, as listed in the Sunday paper and on the local jobs website: 2. Applied to both, have interview for -seasonal- part-time summer job at a garden shop 15 miles away. When I went there to apply I learned that I will be needed to do -some- heavy lifting. I may find out that I do not qualify for this during the interview process, depending on what they consider "heavy."

Jobs in the Computer Tech/Help Desk field: 0

Jobs in fast food in the general area where I live: 0

Babysitting jobs in the neighborhood: 0

Corporate administrative assistant jobs within a 25-mile radius that do -not- require shorthand, -and- that would allow me to be -home- by 5 on Wednesdays: 0

There are no jobs, even though I am more than qualified for plenty of them. Most companies allow flex-time, where you come in early and leave early, as compared with the standard "9-5" routine. But none that allow flex-time are looking for employees. I have knocked on doors, walked the street of the commercial district going to the stores to apply as a walk-in, made phone calls, tried networking with peers. There exists no job in the area for someone with my qualifications, education, and -very- minimum requirements for a job. No temp jobs, no part time jobs, no permanent jobs, no full time jobs.

Now, I could go to the Shoreline and snatch one of a few dozen seasonal jobs there, but they pay minimum wage and part-time, and are over 20 miles from my house, which means it would cost more to get there than I'd take in from a paycheck.

I could go up to Hartford and get a full-time secretarial job, but the pay there doesn't justify the hour commute in each direction, plus the jobs posted don't allow for flex-time on Wednesdays.

There's your evidence, GS101. A -highly- qualified mature adult woman with a wide variety of practical experience in several different fields, who -cannot- get a job that will at -least- cover the cost of the commute and pay for groceries.

[Tsa`ah]

As a person that has been interviewing to fill two positions with the possibility of a third (being my own), I can tell you this without batting an eye. I look at that resume and the first thing that pops into my mind is "nomad". You are not showing any longevity, flexibility, and no sense of compromise. Not meeting 3 of 5 criteria is not good. Even if you have experience and education that may be relevant to the job, I wouldn't hire you.

That is not biased in any way. I've seen probably 100 resumes similar to what you posted.

Additionally I would ask what your degrees are in and what work experience you have relevant to the degree.

I largely believe it mostly a myth that employers will hire anyone with a degree no matter what the degree is in.

Perhaps for lower entry-level positions, but nothing specialized and nothing critical.

That's my observation at least.

Edaarin, I have only had a few econ courses so far so I have to defer to your greater knowledge. I never said that they did not calculate differently. I am getting sick and tired of TheE's talking out of his ass and\or which he has been caught in more times than one. The reason that was said was to show that he could not answer the question, which it was quickly proven as he had to take things else where to get back at me. What I was trying to do with the OECD information was give a non-American set of standard numbers, numbers that are calculated the same for America as well as Europe.

Would you be able to calculate the unemployment in America on terms of European standards? So it is easier to compare?
I am confident that we are still below most of them in our unemployment\nonemployment as you say.

And Gemstone101 I believe it was you who said I would pick one thing and make an argument about it. If I find something that is false or made up as TheE, and others here enjoy doing Its not really worth making any other comments aside from pouting out the bull shit.

This thread only said that 308,000 new jobs were created, others took it down this path. As has happened in many other threads that have turned down the same path.
We disagree politically, I have no problem with that. I am in a minority here in my views because of the atmosphere, and the hate mongering that some many here have for one man whom I happen to respect.

I look at the 308,000 new jobs as good news, Others seem to feel it is their place to insult and degrade the jobs that people have received. I am sorry if you do not look at it as a positive.


PS: yet again another thread that was turned into being about me and not the topic by others aside from myself.
That is three in the last week and a half.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by The Edine]

[Jazuela]

308,000 jobs available, as opposed to HOW many people looking for work? And I don't mean how many people registered with the local Unemployment office. That only accounts for people who are -eligible- to receive compensation. It does not factor in those people who are seeking work for the first time, people who were on unemployment but are no longer eligible, or people who manage to get 4-hour once-a-week jobs at minimum wage, thus causing them to fall off the "unemployed" meter.

As for my work history Tsa'ah, in the past 10 years, I worked 1.5 years as a temp Marketing Secretary. I didn't "nomad" myself out of a job - the boss retired and thus my assignment ended.

Then I got hired by SNET and worked there for 4.5 years until the department was eliminated and I had to take a severence out of the company.

Then I worked steadily for Kelly Services - one employer, for over a year, in various assignments, mostly running seminars for speakers a few times a week.

Then they lost the contract, the so-called "recession" began, and they couldn't give me enough work to meet my VERY minimal needs ($200 a week take-home is not a lot to ask for a job).

So I went to Stop and Shop and worked there for 9 months, until a "headhunter" recruited me for an admin assistant for a major holding company. Unfortunately they decided after my first day at work that "it just isn't working out" and would not give me any input on what I did wrong to explain the sudden change of mind. I asked them: Did I break a policy? Did I behave inappropriately? Did I fail to perform the required work? Did I perform it badly? Did you disapprove of my clothes or hygeine? Did I offend someone?

They refused to answer and told me, again, "It just isn't working out." Stop and Shop wouldn't hire me back because the holding company insisted I begin immediately and so I wasn't able to give 2 weeks notice at S&S.

I've been unemployed since.

It shows, as far as I'm concerned, that I am eager to work, I am more than willing to stick with a job until it is completed - or indefinitely if it's a permanent position..

No one has ever found me unreliable, references would show that I am never late for work, that I perform my duties as requested in a timely manner, that I am excellent with customer relations.

As for my degree, it's in Mass Communications, major is Print Journalism, minor is Creative Writing. I never persued work in the field seriously, because I went to college more for the education aspect of it than the career aspect. This also shows that I am -eager- to learn new things and that I have talent in writing (since I made the Dean's list two semesters in a row)

My education is more of a measure of 1) my general intelligence level, 2) my willingness to learn and 3) not being satisfied to rest on my laurels, since my education didn't end with the degree.

[TheEschaton]

I am getting sick and tired of TheE's talking out of his ass and\or which he has been caught in more times than one. The reason that was said was to show that he could not answer the question, which it was quickly proven as he had to take things else where to get back at me. What I was trying to do with the OECD information was give a non-American set of standard numbers, numbers that are calculated the same for America as well as Europe.

Talk out of my ass? You're accusing me of talking out MY ass? Please, I have support from other people here in terms of my view, whereas you're the one hanging out on a limb here. Please, please, let me know what "the question" is, so I can adequately answer it.

Is the question, "Why do the OECD's numbers show the U.S. with a lower unemployment rate?" I thought I DID answer this. It's because, if you look at their chart, it's basing unemployment as a percentage of the ILO unemployed people amongst the civiian unemployed. Yes, that number MAY be lower in the U.S. Why? Because our unemployment benefits are much more narrow and restricted - as I pointed out, less than 30% of the "unemployed" count towards the unemployment rate. As Edaarin so nicely pointed out, if the OECD standardized America to European standards, and took unemployment as a measure of non-employed among the civilian work force, the rates would be comparable. Very comparable.

And the only reason this topic turned to unemployment rates is because your post, the very first one, said unemployment went up .1%, but that didn't matter.

As for this:

We disagree politically, I have no problem with that. I am in a minority here in my views because of the atmosphere, and the hate mongering that some many here have for one man whom I happen to respect.

It is fine to disagree politically. People show so much venom towards you, though, because even though people have shown you to be wrong, repeatedly, you stick by your inane views, much like the "one man whom [you] happen to respect."

Lastly, the 308,000 number. I gave you that website, right? The Bureau of Labor Statistics? These are their numbers for March:

Change in Unemployment Level:
+182,000 in Mar 2004

Change in Employment Level:
-3,000 in Mar 2004

Change in Civilian Labor Force Level:
+179,000 in Mar 2004

I don't know where you're getting your number. This tells me, though, that 179,000 people joined the labor force. It tells me that 182,000 more people are unemployed, 3000 of which are the ones who LOST employment, the other 179,000 being the ones who joined the labor force.

Now, that's a gov't website. Where'd you get your numbers? A White House press briefing?

-TheE-

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine

PS: yet again another thread that was turned into being about me and not the topic by others aside from myself.
That is three in the last week and a half.


Yeah, it's all our fault too.

I'm really worried about you, Edine.

The Alzheimer's Association has compiled a list of common symptoms which it advises family members, including caregivers, of the elderly to be alert for as a means of early Alzheimer's detection, when treatment is most effective.

The Association lists these 10 common warning signs:

1. While it's normal to forget appointments, names, or telephone numbers, those with dementia will forget such things more often and not remember them later.

2. People with dementia often find it hard to complete everyday tasks that are so familiar one usually doesn't think about how to do them, such as using a household appliance, or participating in a hobby.

3. Everyone has trouble finding the right word sometimes, but a person with Alzheimer's disease often forgets simple words or substitutes unusual words, making speech or writing hard to understand.

4. It's normal to forget the day of the week or where you're going. But people with Alzheimer's disease can become lost on their own street, forget where they are and how they got there, and not know how to get back home.

5. No one has perfect judgment all of the time. However, those with Alzheimer's may dress without regard to the weather, or they may show poor judgment about money, giving away large amounts of money to telemarketers or paying for products they don't need.

6. Someone with Alzheimer's disease could forget how to balance a checkbook, what the numbers are and what needs to be done with them.

7. A person with Alzheimer's disease may put things in unusual places: an iron in the freezer or a wristwatch in the sugar bowl.

8. Rapid mood swings -- from calm to tears to anger -- for no apparent reason may be a sign of Alzheimer's disease.

9. Personalities ordinarily change somewhat with age, but a person with Alzheimer's disease can change a lot, becoming extremely confused, suspicious, fearful, or dependent on a family member.

10. The person with Alzheimer's disease may become withdrawn or not want to take part in usual activities.

The bottom line: If you or someone you know exhibits these warning signs in total or part, their cause should be checked promptly by a physician.

Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) have substantial impairment in many
cognitive domains, including language processing. The most obvious and best
studied language problems in Alzheimer’s patients are in production: the frequency
and nature of word-finding difficulties in AD have been the subject of much
research (e.g., Bayles, Tomoeda & Trosset, 1990; Huff, Corkin & Growdon, 1986;
Kempler, Andersen & Henderson, 1995).

By comparison, relatively little research
has addressed the comprehension problems which also impair Alzheimer patients’
abilities to answer questions, follow instructions, and participate in conversations.

Because the language comprehension problems in AD occur in the context of
memory and other cognitive impairments, it is difficult to determine the underlying
cause of the comprehension impairments. In particular, because of the early and
pronounced short term and working memory deficits in AD (e.g., Baddeley, Della
Sala & Spinler, 1991), it is possible that the comprehension deficit is not due to a
language impairment at all, but rather to a memory problem.

Recent research has assumed that well-constructed experiments can
determine whether the comprehension deficits in AD are due to deficits in memory
or language. There have been proponents of each. Grober and Bang (1995), for
example, argue that AD patients’ comprehension impairment is due to a “genuine
syntactic deficit” (p 95). Although the notion of a syntactic deficit conflicts with
early descriptions of preserved syntactic production in this population (Kempler,
Curtiss & Jackson, 1987; Schwartz, Marin & Saffran, 1979), there is now evidence
that syntactic impairments, although subtle, do appear in even in production tasks
(e.g., Altmann, 1997; Bates et al., 1995).

For example, Altmann, Andersen &
Kempler (1993), and Altmann (1997) have analyzed spontaneous and elicited
speech of AD patients and found a significant number of morpho-syntactic errors,
indicating that even relatively unconstrained production tasks, AD patients make
more syntactic errors than control subjects. Grober and Bang extend the notion of a
syntactic deficit to account for comprehension problems.

They cite evidence that
AD patients have little difficulty comprehending non-reversible passives which can be understood on the basis of word meaning alone (e.g., “The package is carried by
the boy.”), but make errors on reversible passives which require syntactic
processing for accurate comprehension (“The boy is kissed by the girl.”). They
further assert that the comprehension deficits in AD are not due to memory
impairment because AD patients show this same comprehension pattern even when
“storage demands are minimized” by allowing patients to view the stimulus
sentences while selecting an answer (p 104).


You should really get checked out.

I know I speak for everyone when I say that we would feel terrible if you had early onset Alzheimer's. We might have to watch the first three minutes of Fox news to replace you.

edited for formatting

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by longshot]

[TheEschaton]

Dayam.

That was like an overhand smash from Riddick. The Edine, you got served.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

YOU GOT SERVED D00D. Please, longshots insult was fine without the 8th grade urban slang.

turn on the news TheE... CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, FOX NEWS.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/markets/markets_newyork/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html?POLITICSad=true
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4652107/
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
(enjoy the .gov after that one?)

If you wish me to continue TheE just ask.

[TheEschaton]

Let's break down that 308,000 jobs.

Construction employment increased by 71,000 in March, following a decline
in February. This industry has added 201,000 jobs over the past year. Most
of the March employment gain occurred among specialty trade contractors.

71,000 jobs not available to college educated people. We're down to 237,000.

Retail trade added 47,000 jobs in March. This sector has added 132,000
jobs since December, after posting a net job loss in 2003. Within retail
trade, employment in food stores increased by 13,000 over the month, reflect-
ing the net impact of workers returning from a strike. Wholesale trade em-
ployment edged up over the month. Since October, the industry has added
39,000 jobs.

13,000 returning from the food store strike. So this number should be adjusted to 34,000, since no new jobs were really created, they just got their old jobs back. So, that's 34,000 jobs where MBAs would be bagging groceries. Assuming they don't want to do that: 237,000 - 47,000 = 190,000 possible jobs for the educated unemployed.

Employment in health care and social assistance rose by 36,000 in March.
Over the year, this industry has gained 255,000 jobs. In March, employment
increased in hospitals (12,000), offices of physicians (9,000), and nursing
and residential care facilities (7,000).

So, home care people and nurse's aides. My friend has one of those jobs, he need a GED to get it. Some nurses in there, but that requires a very specified education. I'll subtract the 28,000 of the menial jobs they mentioned, and, in good faith, leave the other 8,000 jobs in. So, 190,000 - 28,000 = 162,000

In the financial sector, employment in credit intermediation and related
activities grew by 11,000 in March. Following declines in the last quarter
of 2003, employment in credit intermediation expanded in the first quarter,
reflecting a rise in mortgage refinancing activity. Prior to the fourth
quarter of 2003, the industry had been adding jobs for about 3 years.

Credit intermediation? I'm gonna guess that means bill collecting. Bam, there goes another 11,000. We're down to 151,000

Professional and business services added 42,000 jobs in March. Small em-
ployment increases occurred in several of the component industries, including
architectural and engineering services, computer systems design, and manage-
ment consulting. Elsewhere in professional and business services, employment
in temporary help services was about unchanged over the month. Since April
2003, however, the industry has added 212,000 jobs.

Hmmm...I'll keep these jobs in.

Within the leisure and hospitality sector, employment in food services and
drinking places increased by 27,000 over the month and by 186,000 over the
year.

Fryer jockeys and bartenders. Hmmm. 151,000 - 27,000 = 124,000.

Manufacturing employment was unchanged in March at 14.3 million. Declines
in manufacturing employment began moderating late last summer. Employment in
both durable and nondurable goods manufacturing was little changed in March.

This is the most damning bit! The most indicative measure of employment is manufacturing. It's not in freefall any more, but it's stagnated. Completely.

So, that's 124,000 jobs, spread over 50 states, which a college educated person could hope to have. Not so much any more. These estimates seem padded to me, especially the instance where the striking grocery workers were added.

I'd love to see some numbers on how many jobs were LOST in the month. Considering unemployment rose, and all that.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Why do you care about the people with college degrees anyway E? You care so much for the poor, there are plenty of jobs for the poor. Stop bitching over what type of jobs, Jesus, it's like talking about the Electoral College four years removed.

[TheEschaton]

A) It does matter, since much of the unemployment rise has been in the tech sectors, and basically educated sectors of society. And manufacturing, but that's been a trend since NAFTA.

B) I pointed it out because this press release (it being a press release, is subject to spin) seems to focus on jobs which the large majority of unemployed (at least their definition of unemployed) won't be seeking out. Notice the language, "This industry has added X amount of jobs since April of 2003", forgetting that the industry shed X+Y amount of jobs since '00.

-TheE-

[Jazuela]

So basically Hulkein, they were operating at a net loss before the increase in "employed" or "not unemployed" people. But now, they are operating at less of a net loss. But it is still a net loss.

In addition, I'll add that there are AT LEAST that many unemployed people in the State of Connecticut alone.

So even if there are 308,000 jobs available country-wide, that doesn't even put a dent in the number of people who are looking for work.

My TOWN has over 300,000 people of working age living in it. 308,000 open spots in Dunkin Donuts in East Bumfuck New Jersey ain't gonna help. Not even a little bit.

Lemme know when there are 1000 available jobs in New Haven County, and when there are less than 100,000 people knocking each other down to get those jobs, and we'll have something to talk about.

[Hulkein]

Why don't you move if your state is in such bad conditions? The Job section is packed here in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

[TheEschaton]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Keep in mind, these are only MASS LAYOFFS, where a company has 50 or more former employees claim unemployment benefits for jobs lost in that month. They don't have the numbers for March yet:


In February 2004, there were 941 mass layoff actions by employers, as
measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the
month, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single
establishment, and the number of workers involved totaled 84,201.

[HarmNone]

I am anything BUT an economist; however, I do know that construction and food service jobs are relatively seasonal in many, if not most, areas. Retail is the same. The availability of such positions rises and falls according to the season every year. For the most part, I do not see these jobs as additions to the work force. I see them as jobs that come and go...almost like temporary employment.

As TheE's statistics point out, the manufacturing segment appears stagnant. That condition has been "in the birthing" for quite some time now. I remember hearing several years ago that our economy was turning from an industrial economy to a service economy, with many industrial jobs being out-sourced to other countries. Now, some types of service jobs are being out-sourced.

I can say, unequivically, that the health care industry IS hiring. There are positions available at many levels. A nurse, in this climate, can virtually call his/her own shots. Health care management is also a growing field. So, jobs in that area are not necessarily low-paying ones; although, there are many of those to be found, as well.

Whether or not the availability of employment for everyone who wants it will increase is something I feel will need to be watched for further developments. For the most part, I give little credence to statistics, as they can be twisted quite easily to show anything the statistician wishes them to show. The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak.

If there are not enough jobs for the people who want them, I do not blame the President (although, I dislike G.W. Bush). I look more toward the corporate CEOs who feel that they should make insane amounts of money while the employees of their companies are being told their jobs are being out-sourced, or the company is "cutting down". I look further at the attitude of management that makes it quite clear that 60-70 hours per week from one person is not only what it expects, but what it DEMANDS. Right there, we have saved half a salary (or more) that we can keep in our grubby little hands, eh?

How much of this problem is one of governmental failure, and how much of it is caused by simple, human greed?

HarmNone, wondering again

*Edited to add that the proliferation of temporary employment falls into the same category, oddly, as the expectation of 60-70 hour work weeks. Saving the money that would be paid for benefits for a full-time employee is but another way to paper one's pocket with green stuff, if one is in the position to do so.*

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by HarmNone]

[Scott]

Originally posted by Jazuela
GS101: I submit as anecdotal evidence: Me.

There's your evidence, GS101. A -highly- qualified mature adult woman with a wide variety of practical experience in several different fields, who -cannot- get a job that will at -least- cover the cost of the commute and pay for groceries.

Basically you said "there are no jobs where I live, so that means there are no jobs." The other day I hired a A+ certified person with a BS in liberal arts to a $35,000 a year job. Not a bad job, although it did require him to move out of his house and rent an apartment, but he deserved it. He showed me what he was capable of and what he was willing to do. He probably wasn't the most qualified, but he sure gained my respect and my recommendation.

Unfortunately I'm unable to judge whether I would hire you or not, because I don't know you. However with qualifications like that, and basically saying you can only get a job working as a cashier tells me that you are doing something wrong. Now I understand with your disability, it does limit what you can do, however to tell me that with your credentials that a cashier or babysitting is the only job accessable to your needs, that tells me a lot about you. Relocate, get a loan and start your own computer repair business if you are good enough for it, if you're good in computers I know companies will train you for free to work for them, ect. They're are jobs out there for you, I just feel you aren't looking hard enough.

[Scott]

You know what though.... After realizing you were Bestatte, I take back what I said. I KNOW the reason you can't get a job and that makes perfect sense to me now. After listening to your old post about you being a whore and giving blowjobs for weed, no wonder nobody would hire you. Nobody wants to hire a crackwhore.

Your personality bites and you're "I'm better then thou" attitude is a prime example why you can't get a job. Telling people who join the army to get a college education are scum while you sit at home and say you can't get a job. Sorry, I have no question why you can't get a job, it makes perfect sense.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Gemstone101]

[Edaarin]

Heh. Damn. We're on a roll lately, aren't we.

[Hulkein]

Hahahahaha, good call Sintik.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
You know what though.... After realizing you were Bestatte, I take back what I said.

...

Your personality bites and you're "I'm better then thou" attitude is a prime example why you can't get a job. Telling people who join the army to get a college education are scum while you sit at home and say you can't get a job. Sorry, I have no question why you can't get a job, it makes perfect sense.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Gemstone101]

That really wasn't called for.

I agree that her particular circumstances and limitations are a rather unusual case and should not be considered anywhere near the baseline, but could you not simply have said that?

I think some people are getting entirely too harsh on these boards as of late.

[Scott]

Why would I be nice to someone who constantly attacked and insulted other people? I only said what most people would love to say about her. I'll treat people how they treat myself and others. She says she can't get a job because they're aren't any. However from her past and from her previous reputation, not to mention the quitting of the boards because she didn't like how it went, makes perfect sense about why she didn't get a job. Go read some of her old posts, I think I was pretty nice compared to what she had previously said to others.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Gemstone101]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Why would I be nice to someone who constantly attacked and insulted other people? ... I'll treat people how they treat myself and others.Jesus is crying.

I think the dry jobs might be a localized CT thing, though, cuz I couldn't get a job last summer either. When Stop & Shop isn't hiring, something's up. Although I didn't have a car, so I could only go about 5 miles radius from my house, but there's a shopping mall and one of those plaza deals within that radius. I even wandered around where my mom worked (different town) for awhile, and I did find one job. The only problem: it required a jeweler's bench experience. :( No job for Latrinsorm.

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
You know what though.... After realizing you were Bestatte, I take back what I said. I KNOW the reason you can't get a job and that makes perfect sense to me now.
Your personality bites and you're "I'm better then thou" attitude is a prime example why you can't get a job.

I wonder if she crys with her friends about these boards in chat rooms too,since she already said she laughs at them.

[Skirmisher]

Look, she may have said some things that I will agree I didnt like either, but lets try to keep things somewhat positive?

You think her post in this instance is not applicable than say so. Take issue with her post and say why. I happen to disagree with her points in this thread, but I just say that rather than getting into unneeded personal attacks.

If she wants to try to return to the boards in a pleasant manner, then lets try to allow that to happen.

We should be able to vociferously disagree here, but lets do so as constructively as possible.

[Jazuela]

When in the world did I ever say I was a whore? I think you have me confused with someone else. I never gave blowjobs for weed, and I've never sold sex for money. I also didn't try to hide the fact that I'm also Bestatte - so I don't know why you worded your post the way you did, as if you "discovered' some kind of secret. I posted in my very first post upon returning to this forum that for some reason I was unable to re-register with the name Bestatte.

And yeah - what everyone else says. Stop and Shop isn't hiring. Something is definitely up.

I mentioned the babysitter and cashier thing because when you can't get a job you WANT, you have to start looking for jobs you are willing to settle for.

As far as relocating goes, that isn't an option. Hubby and I own our house, we have a mortgage, and he has a stable job in a corporate headquarters, which means there is no place for his company to transfer him to. The work he does for the company takes place in New Haven.

Edited to add a 't to can, to read: If you can't get a job you want..etc.


[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Jazuela]

[Warriorbird]

Way to be tasteless, all.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Edaarin
No, I refuse to accept that. I can't even count the number of times Edine has derailed threads with his refusal to let anything go, or accept that he might be wrong, especially regarding politics. He posts, and expects us to eat up whatever shit statistic he might come across without argument. If someone doesn't agree, he hounds them with post after post of "I have yet to see you prove me wrong," "Where did you prove me wrong," and so forth.

Your opinion, Edine, has 0 credibility with me. Where you find your articles, how you defend them, how you present your views. Mean nothing. I almost respect Ben's "enlightened" opinions on race more than your political views.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Edaarin]

I know I'm late the the show, but well said Edaarin.

[peam]

308,000 down.

2.2 million to go!

[Tendarian]

Employers added 288,000 jobs in April
WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers added 288,000 jobs to their payrolls in April as the nation's unemployment rate slipped to 5.6%, reinforcing hopes for a sustained turnaround in the jobs market that had lagged for so long.

Payrolls have risen now for eight months, with 867,000 new jobs created so far this year, the Labor Department reported Friday.

The strengthening jobs market comes just in time to aid President Bush's re-election efforts.

Bush is on track to be the first president since the Great Depression to have lost jobs under his watch. But the spate of hiring gains in recent months shrank those losses to about 1.5 million.

Hiring was widespread last month, with the service sector leading the way. Professional and business services employment rose substantially, by 123,000. In that category, gains were in employment services, including temporary help firms, services to buildings and dwellings, management and technical consulting services and architectural and engineering services.

The nation's struggling factories also appear to be turning around. Based on Labor Department revisions, the manufacturing sector added jobs for three months, including 21,000 in April. For the year, manufacturing payrolls are up 27,000.

The unemployment rate fell 0.1 percentage point to 5.6% last month, after reaching a high of 6.3% in June 2003.

Revisions to payrolls also showed a stronger jobs market than previously reported. Last month's 308,000 payroll gains were revised up to 337,000. April's showing surprised analysts, who had expected payroll gains of 180,000 to 200,000.

:thumbsup: More good news for the economy :) Now all the democrats can try to downplay this and claim its actually bad news somehow.

[DeV]

Its always good news when there are jobs available for people without.
Instead of downplaying and complaining that its not enough Im gonna be the first to say well its about damn time. *(Im not a Democrat) This is what we should EXPECT from our president...I'd like to see the numbers continue to increase.

596,000 in two months... this jobless economic recovery is... jobless.

ahh make that 625k new jobs in two months.
<taking into account the 337,000 revised numbers for last month.>

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by The Edine]

[longshot]

It's great that new jobs are created Edine.

However, you posting again in this thread is rediculous.

It's six pages of you having your ass handed to you, and you making logic cry in his grave as you try and stumble out of it.

Read the following quote incase you've forgotten.


Originally posted by Edaarin
No, I refuse to accept that. I can't even count the number of times Edine has derailed threads with his refusal to let anything go, or accept that he might be wrong, especially regarding politics. He posts, and expects us to eat up whatever shit statistic he might come across without argument. If someone doesn't agree, he hounds them with post after post of "I have yet to see you prove me wrong," "Where did you prove me wrong," and so forth.

Your opinion, Edine, has 0 credibility with me. Where you find your articles, how you defend them, how you present your views. Mean nothing. I almost respect Ben's "enlightened" opinions on race more than your political views.



I know it's been a few weeks, and you forgot and all, but you should probably shut up.

[Nieninque]

What does Bestatte mean?

[Tendarian]

Bestatte is Jazuela's former posting name.

[Nieninque]

Oh....:lol:.....I thought it meant something.

I looked in about 3 online dictionaries, and one of those old fashioned books with lots of pages of lists of words and couldnt find anything...:whistle:

[Gan]

Wow, this thread has exhausted my sensibilities as well as my eyes.

1. Protectionism is a bad thing (purely political).

2. Sharing of resources is a good thing (go free trade).

3. Fiscal policy is a bad thing when trying to manage the economy.

4. Monetary policy has been the best option to date for moderating the cycles of the economy.

5. Unemployment is cyclical, it usually recovers when the labor force retools (retrains, re-educates, and re-locates). Darwin had a great theory about adaptation and what happens when entities fail to adapt to their ever-changing environment.

There, there's my two cents worth of opinion.

Gan - B.S. Economics (minor in Poli-Sci). (I should have been a pharmacist...)

Edaarin's view means little to me, my point is made as the unemployment rates continue to go up.

[TheEschaton]

I think you mean "down", Edine.


And he's still 1.5 million in the hole, with 6 months to go. Can he make it? Can he be the first President since Hoover and the Great Depression to actually LOSE jobs during his Presidency?

BTW: Jobs go up in the summer. It's called being off from school. If you read the article, it said job growth was being led in the service sector, especially in the temporary job area. IOW, college kids getting summer jobs.


-TheE-

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Hulkein]

If he was the first President since The Great Depression to lose jobs I honestly would not pin it on him.. Having 9/11 occur around the same time as a somewhat strong recession which was not caused by him is enough reason for me to say it was unavoidable.

TheE, april is not the summer. what colleges end in april?
Yes i ment to say Employment rates continue to go up not unemployment.

[TheEschaton]

The agriculture season starts around March. Migrant workers, anyone?


-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I think you mean "down", Edine.


And he's still 1.5 million in the hole, with 6 months to go. Can he make it? Can he be the first President since Hoover and the Great Depression to actually LOSE jobs during his Presidency?

BTW: Jobs go up in the summer. It's called being off from school. If you read the article, it said job growth was being led in the service sector, especially in the temporary job area. IOW, college kids getting summer jobs.


-TheE-

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by TheEschaton]

LOL.. you would actually have a point if the world's events were completely taken out of it.

Funny part is John Kerry still spouting his promise to make some 10 million jobs. Someone needs to tell that math challenged idiot that we don't have 10 million people LOOKING for a job.

So TheE your telling me that again the job creation for this month means nothing to you? It is not a sign of our economy turning around?

[TheEschaton]

It's a good thing. And certainly, the economy is better than it was a year ago.


However, I see it as a seasonal fluctuation as opposed to anything Bush has done.

-TheE-

Originally posted by TheEschaton
The agriculture season starts around March. Migrant workers, anyone?


-TheE-

I don't think migrant workers are college kids, and I did not see a large jump in agricultural jobs.
I also highly doubt that illegal migrant workers would be reported to the united states government.

[Ravenstorm]

I'm glad to see the number of available jobs increasing. It's good for the country. Maybe in another year or two, the number of jobs out there will be equal to the number when Bush first took office.

While he's doing that, he can work on the following:

1) Reduce the deficit that your grandchildren will be paying off.

2) Do something to save social security so that the money I, and you, have and are putting into it will still be there when we need it.

3) Stop the ever increasing inflation so that the people with these new jobs can actually afford eggs, milk, beef, poultry and other necessities that have risen in price in the last six months. (I'm not even mentioning gasoline. Ok, I lied. I mentioned it. Fortunately, his buddy the Prince will lower oil prices for the election.)

Really, it's great that jobs are being created. Bush patting himself on the back for his 'tax cuts working' is so much bullshit though, especially when there are so many other problems.

And what's the new total for the Iraq bill? 190 billion now?

Raven

Raven I'm sorry but this thing about the Deficit is being blown out of proportion.
Do you forget about the 80's and early 90's? We were some 4 trillion in debt.

Social Security. There are attempts being made but they are being blocked by politics. Bush is trying to make it so that we are able to put that money into our own accounts and use it as we wish, I agree with this policy and hope that I will be able to do so sooner rather than later.

Inflation is always going to be there, Deflation will hurt us more. As long as it is a slow growth the average pay grows with it, inflation is not a problem.

190billion now, saving us how many billions in the future?

You also forget that the buddy prince, was asked for the same thing by the previous administration, but you being one sided in your criticism will not allow you to address that.

[TheEschaton]

Do you forget about the 80's and early 90's? We were some 4 trillion in debt.

Coincidentally, Reagan and Bush were President(s) during those years and....we were in a RECESSION.

And the "Buddy Prince" didn't say okay to Clinton. He's a family friend of the Bushes, though.

-TheE-

When has it ever been said that he did\did not do it for Clinton, Bush I or Bush II? I'm going by what came out of the horses mouth.
you?

Coincidentally, the republicans were in charge of the congress and did not act as obstructionists in the face of Clinton's proposals... Except when it came to the balanced budget when they closed the government so he HAD to give them one.
Clinton's economy was good because of the .com bubble, it burst right before he was out of office. We are now recovering from that burst.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine

190billion now, saving us how many billions in the future?

Not a single cent since, as has been demonstrably shown, Iraq didn't pose any danger to us.

Raven

Time will tell raven, a little over one year is not that long.

[longshot]

I applaud the new job growth.

However, all the new jobs in the world will not fix Edine.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
It's a good thing. And certainly, the economy is better than it was a year ago.


However, I see it as a seasonal fluctuation as opposed to anything Bush has done.

-TheE-

Of course you do.. just like you believe Clinton had everything to do with the economic boom we had during his tenure.

:lol::lol:

[Artha]

I was reading this site the other day about the current Job market, and the trends which will lead to rises and falls in unemployment, and I have some good news. I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

*badump-ump*

[Gan]

I'm not an economist.... but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night...