Yes, but Halliburton is doing better than ever!

And GDP is the highest it's ever been too. That's why you have to look at economic numbers like unemployment relative to the full size of the economy and not by themselves. Population grows, you know. ;-)

The average unemployment rate since 1970 is 6.0%. It's about that right now.

Average GDP growth the past year, average unemployment, very low inflation.

Clinton bashers said the economic figures were manipulated during his administration to make them look better than they were. Bush bashers say the same thing.

It's all relative.

Unemployment rate is about 6%. If it's 8% in Miami it is lower than 6% somewhere else or else it couldn't average to 6%. What's your question? Why is the rate higher in some places and lower in others? I think you can figure that out.

also, you have to realize that productivity gains lead to unemployment.

in the book "The End Of Work" by Jeremy Rifkin he details how computers and machines that make production more efficient invariably lead to higher unemployment. unless new or growing industries require workers and employs the unemployed these numbers only grow.

also, some statistics to think about:

US Average Unemployment by decade:

1950s - 4.5%
1960s - 4.8%
1970s - 6.2%
1980s - 7.3%
1990 - 1993 - 6.6%

these figures show that the current situation is not an abnormal amount of unemployed.

one thing about the current numbers is how the bush administration is constantly revising the numbers downward through manipulation of the methodology of the count.

if the methodology for counting the unemployed in the past was used today the percentage would be much higher.

like what....like this?



:1orglaugh http://xxx.ixadv.com/src_sh.gif

how did you get that screenshot of my stats?

that was my best day ever! :tongue:

BOOM!

Are you asking me if I am counting government employees in my evaluation that 2002 was a basically average year? Seems like a silly question.

Has there been a surge relative to the entire workforce in government employment or are you just stating your philosophical preference?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a STRONG economy. I think it's average - even a little below average (but within a standard deviation) with a high probability of being better in the mid-term.

Take away the government spending (deficit) and we would have been in a recession this year.

That is the name of the game though. Keynes again ;-)

You will never convince the "doom and gloom...the sky is falling" guys Colin. They seem to enjoy living in the "dark".

This is the "light" that shows how doom & gloom exists:

More workers are living on unemployment checks in the US today than at any time in more than 20 years, the US Department of Labor reported last week. Figures released July 10 indicated that 439,000 workers filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the week ending July 5, an increase of 5,000 from the week before. At the same time, the number receiving benefits jumped to 3,818,000, increasing by 87,000 in just one week, and reaching a level not seen since February 1983.

These new statistics confirm the relentless destruction of jobs that is taking place in spite of widespread predictions by economists and government officials of an economic recovery just around the corner. The latest report proves that the jump in the official unemployment rate to 6.4 percent reported a week earlier was not merely an aberration, as Labor Secretary Elaine Chao had maintained.

Source:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/ju...-j16_prn.shtml

So I can't buy that this is an "average" year economically when we have the most people living on those pathetically small unemployment checks since 1983!!

:1orglaugh

"World Socialist Web Site"

And a few more tib bits from this "light".



Iraq war lies and impeachment: Official Washington tiptoes round the "i" word

Are American soldiers in Iraq dying due to depleted uranium?

Bush press conference highlights government crisis

Pentagon scheme for a futures market in terror

Release of Hussein sons' photos: Washington exposes its own barbarism

The eruption of militarism and the crisis of American capitalism

The Iraq war and the debate on phony intelligence

The political economy of American militarism

War, oligarchy and the
political lie


:1orglaugh

There was negative growth in the US economy in the third quarter of 2001.

http://danskeresearch.danskebank.com...e/Forecast.pdf

Damn..are you on the bottle again?
I don't care if the information came from the WEEKLY READER as long as it's ACCURATE.

So answer me this if you would:
Do you DENY or AGREE that there are NOW more Americans living on unemployment checks than since 1983? Is that CORRECT?

P.S. and as for all your "laugh lines", I happen to agree with ALL of them except for the one on depleted uranium.

Soo..heehee right up your ass King. Quit avoiding the central issue of the seriousness of unemployment in this country.

Those statistics don't answer the question.

Centurion asked about recipients of unemployment benefits on a national level.

'One reason some observers are upbeat about economic growth but downbeat about jobs is that higher "commodity prices are more a reflection of global demand [for raw materials] vs. U.S. demand," said Gerald Cohen, senior economist at Merrill Lynch. "We are seeing a pickup in the U.S. economy, but higher commodity prices is more a positive sign about global growth vs. U.S. growth."'

http://www.businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=567

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOu...id=LNS14000000

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOu...ds=Annual+Data

I cannot find August unemployment rates.

YES or NO? Are more Americans living on unemployment checks at any time since 1983? YES OR NO?

Don't hide behind links to graphs or stats..just answer

THE QUESTON!

But it certainly appears to me that the unemployment rate is not the highest since 1983...and as for benefits being paid...maybe so...since we have a larger population. 6% of 300 million represents more people than 6% of 200 million.

That was NOT the question! I'm not talking about the unemployment RATE. I'm talking about the NUMBER OF AMERICANS living on unemployment checks.

Yes or NO? Most since 1983? YES OR NO?

I do not know...as I cannot find the info on the Department of Labor's Web Site. Can you?

Ok..everyone knows how you "play the game" when cornered for specifics. You will never answer the question because you know you are wrong.

And the answer to the question is a resounding "YES!"

I cannot find a source that provides the information...supply one please other than the fucked up source you originally posted...but even if you can...what is your fucking point.

What's my point? I'll try to keep it simple for you:

IT'S BAD!!:BangBang: BAD!!:feels-hot
People cannot afford necessities of life, lose homes, can't send their kids to schools, can't buy products that stimulated the economy, can't get or pay for health care, go through their savings and lose their retirement income!:feels-hot

I don't care about % rates and economic models! Real life shows 10's of thousands of Americans suffering! That's the point!

I don't care if it's a recession or not..when jobs are scarce and people lose their own self respect and find their lives crumbling around them, that's something our government should be addressing immediately and with great fervor!

The Bush administration has failed MISERABLY on this VERY important point.

And from a selfish standpoint, they have less money to spend on PORN too, which keeps me, and..yes, as much as I hate to admit it, even *YOU* in business!

The biggest factor about how many people are unemployed has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with a person's pride.

If a person has convinced himself that he is worth $25/hr and will not work for less, then he's going to be unemployed for quite a while.
If on the other hand, he accepts that it's his responsibility to pay his bills regardless of what he thinks he's worth, then he'll be unemployed for about 24 hours.

In my mind it's better to be delivering pizza and getting tips than sitting on your ass collecting a check because of your stupid pride.
In the end it doesn't matter what your job title is - there's no shame in being responsible and providing for your family.

And you know this to be true for the majority of Americans unemployed how?

What does any thing you just said have to do with the topic of this thread or unemployment rates...which is what Colin was speaking to. If you check the stats from the Department of Labor you can easily see that the unemployment level is not near what it was in 1983 and it was unemployment rates that Colin was speaking to and not benefits being paid.

You are correct...when their benefits run out then they will take a lesser job...but in the meantime they will continue to hope that they get a job that is in their field or at least has similar pay.

*nodding*
The thing is though, most of them could get a 'lesser' job that would pay them more than the unemployment check. Those unemployment checks aren't much more than a pittance.

So..what you are saying then is that the majority of our work force that is currently unemployed are just too proud to go back to work because that work pays less than their old job?

It's personal experience - I have known a *lot* of unemployed people over my lifetime. And the majority of them have the attitude that they're not going to work unless they get a job equal to or better than what they just had.
They end up collecting this tiny check rather than making more at a lower-paying job with a lesser title (if it even has a title). It's like taking a job that they don't consider to be 'worthy' of them would be to admit defeat, where in my line of thinking, taking the check is worse than going and flipping burgers.
*shrug*

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
I can bet you money that if they opened up their Sunday paper there would be at least 50 companies in there with help wanted ads, but they won't apply to things that aren't on what they consider to be "their level".

Anyone, and I do mean anyone, can go down the street right now and get a job at 7-11, or McDonald's, or Papa John's. All they'd have to do is show up looking clean.

This is America. There is *no* reason to be unemployed. There are jobs to be had everywhere. It's just a matter of whether your pride will allow you to take those jobs.

Colin, the 6% rate only accounts folks who are currently receiving or have recently applied for unemployment. There are many more that simply never apply, some that their unemployment has already run out but many are still unemployed, just not counted. There are many people that gave up looking for work many months ago.

I'm not pulling the 20% out of my ass btw, these statistics came up in many readings I've done, commentary shows, Charlie Rose a few times, not sure if you watch but I find the guests are usally folks in the 'know'

I think you may be looking out your window and you see the sun is shining, birds are chirping, but you are missing the homeless folks righ under your window.

The problem with rich folks is they never realize the transition of the masses from middle class to poverty until it's much too late.

I really hope that you are right and things improve but I am very skeptical.

I will agree with you that some people probably do suffer from the "pride" problem. But I have to disagree with you for 2 basic reasons:

1)I can't see a person lose his/her home, savings, not put their kids through college, get medical care, pay those utility bills, put food on the table, or suffer "terminal shutdown" of their life because the job out there pays a bit LESS than their old job.

2)Having said that, do you REALLY think that a 50 year old man with 3 kids in college, and a mortgage to pay, with all the other pending bills one gets in life is going to MEET those financial needs by working at the job where you ask "Do you want fries with that?"

Well...you have to allow for education levels...age...skills...etc. but for the most part you are correct. Most can and will get a job doing something when their benefits run out.

If the 6% only accounts for those that you specify (and I think that you are correct)...then it applies for past years as well...so the 6% and those that are not counted would still be relative and it means that things are pretty much normal.