Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Economy Added Only 74,000 Jobs in December

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    snapper,

    Counting the same thing, in the same way, regardless of who is in office or which party is trying to wreck the economy for mere partisan gain is not the problem.
    I am not partisan when it comes to US politics; Bush was a tool of the corporate interests that seem to run the US today and so is Obama. I deplore both in much the same way and for the same reasons as I deplore the EU and it's behind the scenes distribution of tax payers money to bankrupt banks and corporate lobbyists. State redistribution of capital is inefficient and monetary intervention since 2008 has impoverished the least wealthy.

    My problem with US statistics is that every adjustment to the method of calculation - whether it be in GDP as last year, inflation or unemployment is always designed to show a more optimistic picture. We know that less US citizens of working age are working now than in 2012, 2008 or 2000 but yet these misleading statistics show that unemployment is falling. You are misleading your own population and deluding yourselves. It is as if we were living in a new Ice Age yet the Government denies it by classifying 'warm' as -10C so anything above 0C would be positively 'hot' - it doesn't stop people freezing to death.

    Comment


    • #17
      snapper, didn’t we have this conversation already?

      How do you weigh the price change of a telex when they’ve been rendered obsolete? Why should clothing and footwear, which comprised 10.4% of household spending in the 1930s, still be given that weight when it only accounted for 3.5% of spending in the 2000s? If not the 1930s, what period should be used as the "correct" reference point, and why?

      In a 1970s consumer price index, what weighting would you give to internet services? (For reference, spending in 1989, the first year of data, was $100 mn, and in 2012, it was $80.7 bn, a 39.7% annual [nominal] increase. The price index, which can only be measured since 1999, fell 30% by 2012.)

      Your assertion that US statistics are "always designed to show a more optimistic picture" is pure malarkey, backed up by no evidence whatsoever and completely at odds with both economic and statistical best practices as accepted worldwide.

      Get over it.
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DOR View Post
        Your assertion that US statistics are "always designed to show a more optimistic picture" is pure malarkey, backed up by no evidence whatsoever and completely at odds with both economic and statistical best practices as accepted worldwide.

        Get over it.
        Which explains pretty perfectly why there were less people of working age in employment last year than in 2012 yet 'unemployment' fell. Don't worry though... best practices and all that! Can't question best practices - an area for 'experts' only.

        The supreme irony is that our 'liberal' friends in their desire to defend a President who calls himself liberal - and he's coloured so they assume he must be - have defended the rich bankers and corporate lobbyists at the expense of those whom they claim to represent. People like myself however who were against the bank bailouts and have been critical of QE because it has only made the richest richer and the poorest poorer am regarded as a reactionary! It may be time for the 'Liberals' - if they do indeed hold the views they profess - to accept that their President has let them down.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by snapper View Post
          and he's coloured so they assume he must be
          Guess they were dumb enough to take their cues from conservatives - who continue to make the same link.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • #20
            It may be time for the 'Liberals' - if they do indeed hold the views they profess - to accept that their President has let them down.
            There are many that are disappointed in what he has achieved so far but certainly must realized that a President is constrained in what he/she can achieve. Besides the whole bank bailout dilemma, can we have a discussion of substance that is not one in which people vent their frustrations but can actually refer to a policy failure?

            Comment


            • #21
              The supreme irony is that our 'liberal' friends in their desire to defend a President who calls himself liberal...
              Now, now. "Liberals" in the US is a term interchangeable with regular Dem. voter. Since there are only two parties, that label covers a tent with room enough for four to five parties in a parliamentary coalition government. I know "liberals" who took quite a bit of umbrage at aspects of Obama's policy, and there are also a group of "liberals" who thought Obama turned out to be exactly the president they voted for--capitalist at the core with welfare trappings and a rather conventional international agenda. I am sure a lot of "conservatives" were displeased with G.W. Bush as well.
              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DOR View Post

                Your assertion that US statistics are "always designed to show a more optimistic picture" is pure malarkey, backed up by no evidence whatsoever and completely at odds with both economic and statistical best practices as accepted worldwide.

                Get over it.
                Really, when 535,000 people cant find the employment they want, hell 500,000 of them cpuldn;t find any employment and the government says unemployment is going down becuase 35,000 people did find full time employment... That is the pure malarkey.... 92 million Americans are not part of the work force....

                PS- the U6 is far close to the real unemployment number than the U3.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by EFP View Post
                  There are many that are disappointed in what he has achieved so far but certainly must realized that a President is constrained in what he/she can achieve. Besides the whole bank bailout dilemma, can we have a discussion of substance that is not one in which people vent their frustrations but can actually refer to a policy failure?
                  I see you are new to WAB - welcome :) - and to the ongoing economics debate here. For some time myself and others have put the 'free market' argument; the low interest rates imposed by central banks contributed directly to the 2008 collapse, that the Obama fiscal 'stimulus' was a failure - the graphs prove it did not create anywhere like the number of jobs that was predicted - and that the monetary stimulus or QE has actually impoverished the poorest through currency devaluation and enriched the richest through asset inflation - seen by successive highs in the stock markets etc... Others such as DOR and astralis, both of whom might describe themselves as 'democrats' argue that in fact everything has been handled pretty well - bearing in mind the seriousness of the problems. They point to the fall inflation and unemployment as proofs of a growing 'recovery' and we counter that the statistics do not show a true picture - hence unemployment fell in 2013 though less people of working age were working so the unemployment statistic alone fell while less people actually had jobs. DOR however is a 'professional economist' informs us that such methods are the "statistical best practices as accepted worldwide". Which does not necessarily mean they are right - just that the world may be full of such statistical misrepresentations of truth.

                  I hope that brings you up to speed. See past threads particularly one called gold or something started by cyppok.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Being a small business owner and out among the work force on a daily basis, I say the 6.7% unemployment statistic is malarkey. I believe it is around 10-13%.

                    The Huffington Post even says the 6.7% is low-balling. I usually do not pay much attention to the Huffington Post, but being as they agree with my opinion, I will.

                    Will the Real Unemployment Rate Please Stand Up? | Jared Bernstein

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      Really, when 535,000 people cant find the employment they want, hell 500,000 of them cpuldn;t find any employment and the government says unemployment is going down becuase 35,000 people did find full time employment... That is the pure malarkey.... 92 million Americans are not part of the work force....

                      PS- the U6 is far close to the real unemployment number than the U3.
                      Cool.
                      Just call it U-6, and not unemployment and all problems are solved.
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by DOR; 16 Jan 14,, 02:52.
                      Trust me?
                      I'm an economist!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        DOR

                        So to be precise then would you agree with zraver and I that between January 2012 - January 2014 U3 and U6 fell but labour force participation also fell? In your view were there more or less people in employment in real terms (ie getting up, going to work and being payed for it) in December 2012 than there were in December 2013?

                        Attached Files
                        Last edited by snapper; 17 Jan 14,, 11:41.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          2013 a good year for property in the US Detroit style; Detroit Real Estate & Detroit Homes For Sale — Trulia.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by snapper View Post
                            DOR

                            So to be precise then would you agree with zraver and I that between January 2012 - January 2014 U3 and U6 fell but labour force participation also fell?
                            That's what the data say.

                            In your view were there more or less people in employment in real terms (ie getting up, going to work and being payed for it) in December 2012 than there were in December 2013?
                            By "real," I assume you mean Seasonally Adjusted, since the term wouldn't make sense if it were to mean "adjusted for inflation." See chart.
                            Attached Files
                            Trust me?
                            I'm an economist!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              snapper,

                              For some time myself and others have put the 'free market' argument
                              try not to lower the overall tone of the debate by putting forth this type of insinuation. the overall assumptions of both keynesian and austrian and monetary theories of economics all derive from basic accepted economic theory and maths; it's not marxist economics.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                These numbers will be adjusted.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X