wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.
Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market.
There is less than 5% unemployment. No one is being cut out of any job
market.
I take it you are totally unfamiliar with how unemployment rate is
calculated. The persons of whom I speak don't get counted in the
unemployment rate.
I'm quite familiar with how it is calculated. The method of
calculating it hasn't changed much for a long time. Lots of people
don't get counted in it, but they weren't counted before, either.

This is a common canard - in plainer English, bull**** - of whining
economics-illiterates: that the "real" unemployment rate is much
higher than what is reported. It simply isn't true. Those people who
are excluded from the official definition of the workforce are properly
excluded. If you're not seeking work and you're not working, you're
not counted - and you *shouldn't* be counted. But dopes like you want
to pretend there are some tens of millions of people who have dropped
out of the workforce due to being discouraged, etc., and there simply
is no valid basis for your belief. The only basis for it is your
class-consciousness and your overweening negativity. Your ideology
demands that you make these absurd, outlandish claims, even though
there isn't a shred of theory *or* fact to back them up.



Leif, this Brent guy is absolutely amazing. All this started when I
simply pointed out that cheap imports are not all bad and that you have
to look at the positive side of the ledger too, one of which is people
can buy goods for less money. And I pointed out that this is a good
thing for everyone, especially low income families. Tthis is so
elementary, and obvious, it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't
taken an economics course, would attempt to argue it.

On balance, trade is good for consumers, but there are
some who are worse off if their wages decrease
significantly, or even disappear due to the
disappearance of their jobs. Brent appears to be
adopting a neo-mercantilist position, but from a
populist direction.

The thing to keep in mind is that patterns of "trade"
can make some people better off and others worse off
even within a country the size of the U.S. The
textiles industry in the U.S., before it all but
disappeared due to imports from Asia, first shifted
from the northeast to the south. People in the
northeast who worked in the textiles industry were
thrown out of work, and people in the south found new
and well-paying employment...for a while. More
recently, as real estate in the San Francisco - San
Jose area skyrocketed, software companies still located
there began shifting their customer support call
centers from the Bay Area to Arizona and Texas.

Brent wants to try to camouflage his ignorant
opposition to trade under some guise of "fairness",
e.g. comparable worker protection and environmental
regulations, but even if China and the U.S. had
identical regulations in those areas, China still would
be able to manufacture just about everything cheaper
than we can.



Equally amazing is his continual refusal to acknowledge that you need
to look at economic numbers relative to others that represent the size
of the economy and the ability to pay.

This really does reflect his economics illiteracy. It
really doesn't matter what the absolute level of debt
is; what matters is debt relative to income. Someone
earning $100,000 a year can almost certainly obtain a
mortgage of $300,000; someone earning $20,000 probably
cannot obtain a mortgage of $100,000.


I still don;t know what debt
level he thinks should be the reference point. Sounds like maybe
whatever it was in 1776 and it should only go down from there. As I
tried to point out to him before, if you look at govt debt, per capita
private debt, etc, a country like Germany that is advanced is going to
have a hell of a lot more than say Sudan or Haiti, because it goes hand
in hand with economic progress and a rising std of living. But
according to him, it's a sign of impending doom.

Also, good to see someone else can spot the clueless STRAWMAN defense.
Most times I ask a simple question, his answer is STRAWMAN! It's
quite laughable.

He doesn't know what the term means.

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?
I do. They unanimously say that trade is beneficial.
They unanimously feel the need to breath too.
I've also heard that they believe the sky is blue.

You ignorantly pretended in your comment that some among them would
condemn trade. That was stupid of you.


I see you have nothing to contribute but insults. Good day.,

*PLONK*

That's it, brandy - tuck your tail and run.

In article et, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:

I see you have nothing to contribute but insults. Good day.,

*PLONK*

That's it, brandy - tuck your tail and run.

No it's simply pointless to even bother debating with people who don't
discusss or debate but rather insult, build strawmen, ask 'When did
you stop beating your wife?' type questions, twist words, and are just
generally playing usenet games.

Brent P wrote:
In article et, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:

I see you have nothing to contribute but insults. Good day.,

*PLONK*
That's it, brandy - tuck your tail and run.

No it's simply pointless to even bother debating with people who don't
discusss or debate but rather insult,

I'm sorry if you feel insulted when I point out your
ignorance about economics, Brent, but there's no
denying it. You *are* completely ignorant in the field.


build strawmen,

Not once. I can't say I'm sorry that you are bitchy
about your misuse of "strawman" being pointed out. You
have misused it EVERY TIME you've written it.

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
wrote:
Rid America of these scumbag illegal aliens and we will demonstrate
that White workers are the best.



Said like a genuine NY Yankee fan circa 2004:

"Just get rid of Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz, Mannie Ramirez, Nomar
Garciaparra, and we will demonstrate the we are the best".

Duh!

-Ramon

And then along came Kenny Rogers. Oh wait, ... Never MIND!

wrote:

This is a common canard - in plainer English, bull**** - of whining
economics-illiterates: that the "real" unemployment rate is much
higher than what is reported. It simply isn't true. Those people who
are excluded from the official definition of the workforce are properly
excluded. If you're not seeking work and you're not working, you're
not counted - and you *shouldn't* be counted. But dopes like you want
to pretend there are some tens of millions of people who have dropped
out of the workforce due to being discouraged, etc., and there simply
is no valid basis for your belief. The only basis for it is your
class-consciousness and your overweening negativity. Your ideology
demands that you make these absurd, outlandish claims, even though
there isn't a shred of theory *or* fact to back them up.

Leif, this Brent guy is absolutely amazing. All this started when I
simply pointed out that cheap imports are not all bad and that you have
to look at the positive side of the ledger too, one of which is people
can buy goods for less money. And I pointed out that this is a good
thing for everyone, especially low income families. Tthis is so
elementary, and obvious, it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't
taken an economics course, would attempt to argue it.

Unfortunately, your statemet of "Tthis is so elementary, and obvious,
it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't taken an economics
course..." is substantially devoid of supporting evidence. In
economics, nothing is obvious (thanks to statistics) which is why the
market does what the market does.

trent

wrote:

Rid America of these scumbag illegal aliens and we will demonstrate
that White workers are the best.

Your dumbass ancestors should have thought of that before they brought
Black workers here to be slaves.

trent wrote:

Unfortunately, your statemet of "Tthis is so elementary, and obvious,
it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't taken an economics
course..." is substantially devoid of supporting evidence. In
economics, nothing is obvious (thanks to statistics) which is why the
market does what the market does.

trent


Just put my complete statement out there and then everyone can judge
whether it needs supporting evidence or if you're just intellectually
challenged.


" Equally amazing is his continual refusal to acknowledge that you need

to look at economic numbers relative to others that represent the size

of the economy and the ability to pay. "

And while you're at it, I notice you didn't have anything to say about
these points I tried to make:

"I still don;t know what debt
level he thinks should be the reference point. Sounds like maybe
whatever it was in 1776 and it should only go down from there. As I
tried to point out to him before, if you look at govt debt, per capita
private debt, etc, a country like Germany that is advanced is going to
have a hell of a lot more than say Sudan or Haiti, because it goes hand

in hand with economic progress and a rising std of living. But
according to him, it's a sign of impending doom. "


BTW, STRAWMAN is not an answer.

In article , trent wrote:
wrote:

This is a common canard - in plainer English, bull**** - of whining
economics-illiterates: that the "real" unemployment rate is much
higher than what is reported. It simply isn't true. Those people who
are excluded from the official definition of the workforce are properly
excluded. If you're not seeking work and you're not working, you're
not counted - and you *shouldn't* be counted. But dopes like you want
to pretend there are some tens of millions of people who have dropped
out of the workforce due to being discouraged, etc., and there simply
is no valid basis for your belief. The only basis for it is your
class-consciousness and your overweening negativity. Your ideology
demands that you make these absurd, outlandish claims, even though
there isn't a shred of theory *or* fact to back them up.

Leif, this Brent guy is absolutely amazing. All this started when I
simply pointed out that cheap imports are not all bad and that you have
to look at the positive side of the ledger too, one of which is people
can buy goods for less money. And I pointed out that this is a good
thing for everyone, especially low income families. Tthis is so
elementary, and obvious, it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't
taken an economics course, would attempt to argue it.

Unfortunately, your statemet of "Tthis is so elementary, and obvious,
it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't taken an economics
course..." is substantially devoid of supporting evidence. In
economics, nothing is obvious (thanks to statistics) which is why the
market does what the market does.

What I find amusing is that this guy and his sock puppet spend all their
time constructing arguments to knock down. I merely mention that the
unemployment rate doesn't count everyone and immediately 'they' create a
whole set of arguments and views for me out of thin air, not to mention a
variety of insulting statements. Rinse and repeat that for everything else.

They aren't discussing, but rather asserting and accusing. I let it go on
far too long with the trader guy as it was amusing at first. It just
takes too much effort to constantly correct them each time they assign a
view. The only thing to do with such people is to simply kill file them.

Beyond that it's pretty clear that their economics lessons came directly
from Rush Limbaugh. The least they could do is listen to the economics
professor that substitutes for Limbaugh once in awhile to have something
more than assertion from a radio talk show host.

wrote:

trent wrote:

Unfortunately, your statemet of "Tthis is so elementary, and obvious,
it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't taken an economics
course..." is substantially devoid of supporting evidence. In
economics, nothing is obvious (thanks to statistics) which is why the
market does what the market does.

trent

Just put my complete statement out there and then everyone can judge
whether it needs supporting evidence or if you're just intellectually
challenged.

This is not a proof.

trent

Brent P wrote:
In article , trent wrote:
wrote:

This is a common canard - in plainer English, bull**** - of whining
economics-illiterates: that the "real" unemployment rate is much
higher than what is reported. It simply isn't true. Those people who
are excluded from the official definition of the workforce are properly
excluded. If you're not seeking work and you're not working, you're
not counted - and you *shouldn't* be counted. But dopes like you want
to pretend there are some tens of millions of people who have dropped
out of the workforce due to being discouraged, etc., and there simply
is no valid basis for your belief. The only basis for it is your
class-consciousness and your overweening negativity. Your ideology
demands that you make these absurd, outlandish claims, even though
there isn't a shred of theory *or* fact to back them up.

Leif, this Brent guy is absolutely amazing. All this started when I
simply pointed out that cheap imports are not all bad and that you have
to look at the positive side of the ledger too, one of which is people
can buy goods for less money. And I pointed out that this is a good
thing for everyone, especially low income families. Tthis is so
elementary, and obvious, it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't
taken an economics course, would attempt to argue it.

Unfortunately, your statemet of "Tthis is so elementary, and obvious,
it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't taken an economics
course..." is substantially devoid of supporting evidence. In
economics, nothing is obvious (thanks to statistics) which is why the
market does what the market does.

What I find amusing is that this guy and his sock puppet spend all their
time constructing arguments to knock down.

No, that's a lie.


I merely mention that the
unemployment rate doesn't count everyone and immediately 'they' create a
whole set of arguments and views for me

Nope. And you implied much more than that, too. The implication of
your statement is that the unemployment *badly* understates something
you wish to pretend is the "real" unemployment rate, and that is false.


They aren't discussing, but rather asserting and accusing.

Funny, that's just what I was going to say about you.


Beyond that it's pretty clear that their economics lessons came directly
from Rush Limbaugh.

ad hominem, and also false.

I studied economics for seven years, ****head: four years undgrad,
three years in grad school. I know economics. You don't.

Brent P wrote:

In article , trent wrote:
wrote:

This is a common canard - in plainer English, bull**** - of whining
economics-illiterates: that the "real" unemployment rate is much
higher than what is reported. It simply isn't true. Those people who
are excluded from the official definition of the workforce are properly
excluded. If you're not seeking work and you're not working, you're
not counted - and you *shouldn't* be counted. But dopes like you want
to pretend there are some tens of millions of people who have dropped
out of the workforce due to being discouraged, etc., and there simply
is no valid basis for your belief. The only basis for it is your
class-consciousness and your overweening negativity. Your ideology
demands that you make these absurd, outlandish claims, even though
there isn't a shred of theory *or* fact to back them up.

Leif, this Brent guy is absolutely amazing. All this started when I
simply pointed out that cheap imports are not all bad and that you have
to look at the positive side of the ledger too, one of which is people
can buy goods for less money. And I pointed out that this is a good
thing for everyone, especially low income families. Tthis is so
elementary, and obvious, it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't
taken an economics course, would attempt to argue it.

Unfortunately, your statemet of "Tthis is so elementary, and obvious,
it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't taken an economics
course..." is substantially devoid of supporting evidence. In
economics, nothing is obvious (thanks to statistics) which is why the
market does what the market does.

What I find amusing is that this guy and his sock puppet spend all their
time constructing arguments to knock down. I merely mention that the
unemployment rate doesn't count everyone and immediately 'they' create a
whole set of arguments and views for me out of thin air, not to mention a
variety of insulting statements. Rinse and repeat that for everything else.

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs. And this number is widely disregarded by those outside of
the press. Economists watch the Employment Rate (a number not
calculated by a Government Agency) and the Non-Farm Payrolls number, a
measure of job-creation.

What were they saying?

trent

In article , trent wrote:

What I find amusing is that this guy and his sock puppet spend all their
time constructing arguments to knock down. I merely mention that the
unemployment rate doesn't count everyone and immediately 'they' create a
whole set of arguments and views for me out of thin air, not to mention a
variety of insulting statements. Rinse and repeat that for everything else.

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs. And this number is widely disregarded by those outside of
the press. Economists watch the Employment Rate (a number not
calculated by a Government Agency) and the Non-Farm Payrolls number, a
measure of job-creation.

Yep.

What were they saying?

They being trader and his socket puppet? It's in the material you quoted.
basically to them saying that the unemployment number doesn't count
everyone who is unemployed means hold a whole host of views.

Of course you're correct, it only counts specific unemployed people that
meet a set of criteria.

trent wrote:
Brent P wrote:

In article , trent wrote:
wrote:

This is a common canard - in plainer English, bull**** - of whining
economics-illiterates: that the "real" unemployment rate is much
higher than what is reported. It simply isn't true. Those people who
are excluded from the official definition of the workforce are properly
excluded. If you're not seeking work and you're not working, you're
not counted - and you *shouldn't* be counted. But dopes like you want
to pretend there are some tens of millions of people who have dropped
out of the workforce due to being discouraged, etc., and there simply
is no valid basis for your belief. The only basis for it is your
class-consciousness and your overweening negativity. Your ideology
demands that you make these absurd, outlandish claims, even though
there isn't a shred of theory *or* fact to back them up.

Leif, this Brent guy is absolutely amazing. All this started when I
simply pointed out that cheap imports are not all bad and that you have
to look at the positive side of the ledger too, one of which is people
can buy goods for less money. And I pointed out that this is a good
thing for everyone, especially low income families. Tthis is so
elementary, and obvious, it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't
taken an economics course, would attempt to argue it.

Unfortunately, your statemet of "Tthis is so elementary, and obvious,
it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't taken an economics
course..." is substantially devoid of supporting evidence. In
economics, nothing is obvious (thanks to statistics) which is why the
market does what the market does.

What I find amusing is that this guy and his sock puppet spend all their
time constructing arguments to knock down. I merely mention that the
unemployment rate doesn't count everyone and immediately 'they' create a
whole set of arguments and views for me out of thin air, not to mention a
variety of insulting statements. Rinse and repeat that for everything else.

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.

Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!


And this number is widely disregarded by those outside of
the press. Economists watch the Employment Rate (a number not
calculated by a Government Agency) and the Non-Farm Payrolls number, a
measure of job-creation.

What were they saying?

I was saying that the implication of whiny Brent's lament is that there
are vast numbers of people without jobs who are not captured in the
unemployment rate, and his implied claim is FALSE.

Brent P wrote:
In article , trent wrote:

What I find amusing is that this guy and his sock puppet spend all their
time constructing arguments to knock down. I merely mention that the
unemployment rate doesn't count everyone and immediately 'they' create a
whole set of arguments and views for me out of thin air, not to mention a
variety of insulting statements. Rinse and repeat that for everything else.

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs. And this number is widely disregarded by those outside of
the press. Economists watch the Employment Rate (a number not
calculated by a Government Agency) and the Non-Farm Payrolls number, a
measure of job-creation.

Yep.

Except the implication of your whine - that there are vast numbers of
people without jobs who would like to work, and who are not captured in
the unemployment data - is false.

wrote in message
ups.com...

The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy. What's the problem with defining what "debt" you are
referring to? Better to rail against mysterious, vagues and evil
debt, I guess.

Whatever happened to that Republican drive for the
"Balanced Budget Amendment" a few years ago? They used
to think a deficit was a bad thing.

Maybe they realized they could make more money for themselves
with huge government spending, especially when they leave the
bills for everyone else's grandkids.

Bob

In chi.general Brent P wrote:
: In article , Elmo wrote:

: Low wages paid to ag workers are one way to subsidize low food prices.
: Think what food would cost if the people who produce, prepare, and serve
: it actually got paid living wages.

: Low wages prevent the use of automation. Only those crops where
: automation has not yet been developed and/or growers simply refuse to
: use it because of the cheap labor supply depend on illegal alien
: workers. There wouldn't be any increase in price unless the producers
: threw a fit and stopped growing the crops. The market price is what is.

Actually, when we worked at McD's in the late 80's and early 90's, what the
claim was at least that drove the automation projects was the fact they
couldn't get enough people... the ArchFry and ArchDrink machines and order
Kiosks were one way to automate some of the labor...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

In article , Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
In chi.general Brent P wrote:
: In article , Elmo wrote:

: Low wages paid to ag workers are one way to subsidize low food prices.
: Think what food would cost if the people who produce, prepare, and serve
: it actually got paid living wages.

: Low wages prevent the use of automation. Only those crops where
: automation has not yet been developed and/or growers simply refuse to
: use it because of the cheap labor supply depend on illegal alien
: workers. There wouldn't be any increase in price unless the producers
: threw a fit and stopped growing the crops. The market price is what is.

Actually, when we worked at McD's in the late 80's and early 90's, what the
claim was at least that drove the automation projects was the fact they
couldn't get enough people... the ArchFry and ArchDrink machines and order
Kiosks were one way to automate some of the labor...

Very true. A shortage of labor also serves to have automation put into
use. Just to add to that, hasn't McD's also increased wages above the
minimum wage in an effort to attract people to work there?

In chi.general Brent P wrote:
: In article , Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
: In chi.general Brent P wrote:
:: In article , Elmo wrote:
:
:: Low wages paid to ag workers are one way to subsidize low food prices.
:: Think what food would cost if the people who produce, prepare, and serve
:: it actually got paid living wages.
:
:: Low wages prevent the use of automation. Only those crops where
:: automation has not yet been developed and/or growers simply refuse to
:: use it because of the cheap labor supply depend on illegal alien
:: workers. There wouldn't be any increase in price unless the producers
:: threw a fit and stopped growing the crops. The market price is what is.
:
: Actually, when we worked at McD's in the late 80's and early 90's, what the
: claim was at least that drove the automation projects was the fact they
: couldn't get enough people... the ArchFry and ArchDrink machines and order
: Kiosks were one way to automate some of the labor...

: Very true. A shortage of labor also serves to have automation put into
: use. Just to add to that, hasn't McD's also increased wages above the
: minimum wage in an effort to attract people to work there?

Yep, they were paying above min wage to attract and keep folks... there were
also crew scholarship $'s available to attract good students...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy. What's the problem with defining what "debt" you are
referring to? Better to rail against mysterious, vagues and evil
debt, I guess.

Whatever happened to that Republican drive for the
"Balanced Budget Amendment" a few years ago? They used
to think a deficit was a bad thing.

Maybe they realized they could make more money for themselves
with huge government spending, especially when they leave the
bills for everyone else's grandkids.

Bob

You got that right! Biggest whorehouse in the U.S. is right in
the Capitol -- corrupt (mostly) white millionaires busy protecting
their incumbencies (and their closeted gay asses while denouncing
other human beings) instead of respecting their oath to defend the
Constitution! "Serve the people"? Hey, wassup with that Commie
stuff!

Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.

Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!

If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent

In article ,
says...
In article , Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
In chi.general Brent P wrote:
: In article , Elmo wrote:

: Low wages paid to ag workers are one way to subsidize low food prices.
: Think what food would cost if the people who produce, prepare, and serve
: it actually got paid living wages.

: Low wages prevent the use of automation. Only those crops where
: automation has not yet been developed and/or growers simply refuse to
: use it because of the cheap labor supply depend on illegal alien
: workers. There wouldn't be any increase in price unless the producers
: threw a fit and stopped growing the crops. The market price is what is.

Actually, when we worked at McD's in the late 80's and early 90's, what the
claim was at least that drove the automation projects was the fact they
couldn't get enough people... the ArchFry and ArchDrink machines and order
Kiosks were one way to automate some of the labor...

Very true. A shortage of labor also serves to have automation put into
use. Just to add to that, hasn't McD's also increased wages above the
minimum wage in an effort to attract people to work there?

Of course (I noted they're offering $9.00/hr when I drove through
today). You seem to have a problem with this.

--
Keith

In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

Very true. A shortage of labor also serves to have automation put into
use. Just to add to that, hasn't McD's also increased wages above the
minimum wage in an effort to attract people to work there?

Of course (I noted they're offering $9.00/hr when I drove through
today). You seem to have a problem with this.

You seem to be a dumb asshole, as that not only do I have no problem with
it, it is exactly what should happen. What I have a problem with is
flooding the labor market with more people to surpress wages.

In chi.general wrote:

: Bob F wrote:
: wrote in message
: ps.com...
:
: wrote:
: We have spent a lifetime of throwing americans out of work, every time
: we buy imported goods.......... the wages of china etc are no where
: ours.
:
: this year china begins exporting a economy car. $7000 10 year 100,000
: mile warranty.
:
: the american standard of living will HAVE to drop at some point we
: just arent affordable workers anymore.........
:
:
:
: Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
: And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
: $7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
: labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
: positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
: families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
: everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.
:
:
: And that $7000 mostly leaves the country - resulting in no benefit
: to the economy here, or negative benefit due to the trade deficit.
: As the chinese buy up our country with that money, the American
: economy will continue to collapse, until this is a third world nation.

: Continue to collapse? See, this is what I'm talking about. Talk
: about only looking at only the negatives. The unemployment rate is at
: 4.4%. That is well below the average of the past 40 years (6.0%), the
: 90's (5.8%), and below levels that are considered full employment.
: Over the last 3 years, GDP has grown at a 3.5% rate, which is faster
: than either the 80's or 90's. Inflation is under control and interest
: rates are low. Real estate prices are at record levels, the Dow has
: just made a new all time high, and more Americans own homes than ever
: before.

A number of the people I know that were laid off between 2001 and 2004 have
taken new jobs that pay 50% to 75% of what they used to earn... One is a
mechanical engineer who has given up and long ago ran out of unemployment
insurance so he's no longer counted... one who was a bank vp has opened his
own financial planning business but he said aside from tax season, he doesn't
make enough to support his family (his house is paid off though), both are
dependant on their wives working for the moment.

One who had been a software engineer took a job selling yellowbook ad's...

: If that's a continuing collapse, I want more of it!

Sadly... the housing industry isn't doing so well anymore... my mother-in-law
is a realtor and the place she works for did a new listing near us... I asked
how come there was no sign up on the house and she told me they were out of
signs. She says that has never happened before... The housing market has
stopped... the rehabbers who own the house next to me have been lowering
the price by $10k every few weeks and are 50k below what they started asking
and we haven't seen anyone look at the house now in a few weeks...

: Had that money remained here, it would have resulted in more
: purchases from those that earned it. Repeat as needed.
: Short term thinking in a long term world.

Deflation is a bad thing... if home prices fall, some people will be forced
out and be negative in their homes... (lots of people were buying 0% down)...

It could turn out very bad if people who took home equity loans to pay off
bills find themselves owing more on their homes than they are worth...


--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message

The government is constantly spending money on capital goods - bridges,
ports, airports, military hardware, etc. - and those goods are not
going to be consumed all in one period. Thus, it doesn't make sense to
pay for them all in one period, either. People will be "consuming"
nuclear submarines and other things for many years to come; there's no
reason they shouldn't be paying for them for the duration of the goods'
service.


I don't use my computer all in one period either. But I paid for it
in cash. Like virtually everything else I buy. And if I use a credit
card - I pay it back before any interest accrues.

Whatever happened to the republicans balanced budget amandment.
Have they forgotten their promise?

I just heard on the radio that the unsecured debt of the U.S. is
way more than we can pay, suggesting that we are already bankrupt.

Bob

trent wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.

Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!

If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent


Why would Brent even consider the unemployment rate? He refuses to
acknowledge that economic data, like national debt, only has relevance
when compared to other relevant data, like the size of the economy or
ability to service debt. Last time I checked the unemployment rate is
a measure of the number of unemployed vs the total pool of emplouable
workers. Following his logic, he should be just whining that there
are X million of folks unemployed and that it's very, very bad, cause
it's a lot higher than it was 100 years ago.

wrote:

trent wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.

Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!

If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent

Why would Brent even consider the unemployment rate? He refuses to
acknowledge that economic data, like national debt, only has relevance
when compared to other relevant data, like the size of the economy or
ability to service debt. Last time I checked the unemployment rate is
a measure of the number of unemployed vs the total pool of emplouable
workers. Following his logic, he should be just whining that there
are X million of folks unemployed and that it's very, very bad, cause
it's a lot higher than it was 100 years ago.

You should check again, maybe with the BLS.

trent

trent wrote:
wrote:
trent wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.
Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!
If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent
Why would Brent even consider the unemployment rate? He refuses to
acknowledge that economic data, like national debt, only has relevance
when compared to other relevant data, like the size of the economy or
ability to service debt. Last time I checked the unemployment rate is
a measure of the number of unemployed vs the total pool of emplouable
workers. Following his logic, he should be just whining that there
are X million of folks unemployed and that it's very, very bad, cause
it's a lot higher than it was 100 years ago.

You should check again, maybe with the BLS.

Check what? That there are more people unemployed now
than 100 years ago? There undoubtedly are.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

trent wrote:
wrote:
trent wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.
Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!
If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent
Why would Brent even consider the unemployment rate? He refuses to
acknowledge that economic data, like national debt, only has relevance
when compared to other relevant data, like the size of the economy or
ability to service debt. Last time I checked the unemployment rate is
a measure of the number of unemployed vs the total pool of emplouable
workers. Following his logic, he should be just whining that there
are X million of folks unemployed and that it's very, very bad, cause
it's a lot higher than it was 100 years ago.

You should check again, maybe with the BLS.

Check what? That there are more people unemployed now
than 100 years ago? There undoubtedly are.

RTFP.

trent

In article . com,
says...

trent wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.

Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!

If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent


Why would Brent even consider the unemployment rate? He refuses to
acknowledge that economic data, like national debt, only has relevance
when compared to other relevant data, like the size of the economy or
ability to service debt.


You've just proven that you don't understand ratios.

Last time I checked the unemployment rate is
a measure of the number of unemployed vs the total pool of emplouable
workers.

No, it's the number of people

looking_for_employment/employed+looking_for_employment

If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!

Following his logic, he should be just whining that there
are X million of folks unemployed and that it's very, very bad, cause
it's a lot higher than it was 100 years ago.

Again, you have no clue what a ratio is.

Let me put it another way, if I have a $million income, do I sweat
a $10K credit card bill?


--
Keith

trent wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
trent wrote:
wrote:
trent wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.
Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!
If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent
Why would Brent even consider the unemployment rate? He refuses to
acknowledge that economic data, like national debt, only has relevance
when compared to other relevant data, like the size of the economy or
ability to service debt. Last time I checked the unemployment rate is
a measure of the number of unemployed vs the total pool of emplouable
workers. Following his logic, he should be just whining that there
are X million of folks unemployed and that it's very, very bad, cause
it's a lot higher than it was 100 years ago.
You should check again, maybe with the BLS.
Check what? That there are more people unemployed now
than 100 years ago? There undoubtedly are.

RTFP.

So you can't really say. That figures.

Trader4's point would seem to be confirmed. Brent, and
apparently you, look at absolute numbers rather than
rates and ratios. That makes you economics-illiterate.

krw wrote:
In article . com,
says...
trent wrote:
Leif Erikson wrote:

THE unemployment rate (called 'the headline number' in the monthly
survey) does NOT count everyone- only those who "had made specific
efforts to find employement sometime during the 4-week period ending
with the reference week." It does not count the number of people
without jobs.
Right, and rightly so. Not everyone without a job is looking for work.

Say you graduate high school and look for a full-time job for the
summer. You don't find one. During the summer, you'd be counted as
unemployed. At the end of the summer, your wise parents admonition
that you need more education finally sinks in, and you enroll in
community college as a full-time student. Are you unemployed? ****,
no!
If I was really smart I'd still be in school. Never. Leave. College.

trent

Why would Brent even consider the unemployment rate? He refuses to
acknowledge that economic data, like national debt, only has relevance
when compared to other relevant data, like the size of the economy or
ability to service debt.


You've just proven that you don't understand ratios.

No, he hasn't. He has proved that he *does* understand
them. The ****wit Brent has proved that he doesn't.


Last time I checked the unemployment rate is
a measure of the number of unemployed vs the total pool of emplouable
workers.

No, it's the number of people

No, you ****WIT: he was writing about the unemployment
RATE. A *RATE* is not the number of people; it's a
percentage.

YOU have just proved that YOU do not understand rates
and ratios.


If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!

Right, but not to Brent.


Following his logic, he should be just whining that there
are X million of folks unemployed and that it's very, very bad, cause
it's a lot higher than it was 100 years ago.

Again, you have no clue what a ratio is.

False. He does know what it is. The moron Brent does not.

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message

This is elementary, little sophomore. If my income falls 10% but the
goods I wish to consume decline by 20% due to competition, I'm better
off.


Until you lose your job, then it's not so hot. You are unemployed
for months or years, they you finally take a job flipping burgers
because that's all that's left.

Bob

In article , krw wrote:

No, it's the number of people

looking_for_employment/employed+looking_for_employment

If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!

It's not that simple. The formula is political and for instance does not
include people who have run out of unemployment benefits but are still
seeking employment. It counts people who accepted jobs that pay a small
fraction of what they used to make because their unemployment ran out but
are still looking as employed. There are a bunch more if-then-elses but
you can find those on your own time.

Brent P wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

No, it's the number of people

looking_for_employment/employed+looking_for_employment

If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!

It's not that simple. The formula is political and for instance does not
include people who have run out of unemployment benefits but are still
seeking employment.

You continue to demonstrate your total ignorance. People who's
unemployment benefits have run out are most certainly included in the
unemployment rate. And the unemployment benefit list is not even used
as part of the data collection, period. The unemployment rate is
calculated by a random survey of households, precisely to avoid the
problem above, which you falsely claim exists. Basicly, the survey
determines who has a job and who does not, but is looking for one.

And only a nitwit would claim that the data collection and rate
calculation are "political", because the process is fair, reasonable
and has been done for decades, regardless of which party is in power.

But why worry about the "rate", at all. Since you refuse to
acknowledge that economic statistics, like national debt or budget
deficit, need to be compared to anything relevant, you should simply
be arguing absolutes. There are more unemployed today than 100
years ago, so it's very, very, bad.






It counts people who accepted jobs that pay a small
fraction of what they used to make because their unemployment ran out but
are still looking as employed. There are a bunch more if-then-elses but
you can find those on your own time.

Bob F wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
This is elementary, little sophomore. If my income falls 10% but the
goods I wish to consume decline by 20% due to competition, I'm better
off.


Until you lose your job, then it's not so hot.

I wasn't talking about losing my job, and neither was
the little sophomore. We were only discussing whether
poor people are better off with low-price imports
coming into the country. They are.

Brent P wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

No, it's the number of people

looking_for_employment/employed+looking_for_employment

If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!

It's not that simple.

It is *exactly* that simple. If you're not already
employed OR actively seeking employment, then you're
not in the work force. It's that simple.


The formula is political and for instance does not
include people who have run out of unemployment benefits but are still
seeking employment.

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Here, you ideologically
motivated and economics-ignorant liar, read this:

Some people think that to get these figures on
unemployment the Government uses the number of
persons filing claims for unemployment insurance
(UI) benefits under State or Federal Government
programs. But some people are still jobless when
their benefits run out, and many more are not
eligible at all or delay or never apply for
benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot
be used as a source for complete information on the
number of unemployed.

Other people think that the Government counts every
unemployed person each month. To do this, every home
in the country would have to be contacted--just as
in the population census every 10 years. This
procedure would cost way too much and take far too
long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of
having a census taker come to their homes every
month, year after year, to ask about job-related
activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only
to persons who have applied for such benefits, and
since it is impractical to actually count every
unemployed person each month, the Government
conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current
Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of
unemployment in the country. The CPS has been
conducted in the United States every month since
1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration
project. It has been expanded and modified several
times since then. As explained later, the CPS
estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of
a major redesign of the survey.

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for
this survey. The sample is selected so as to be
representative of the entire population of the
United States. In order to select the sample, first,
the 3,141 counties and county-equivalent cities in
the country are grouped into 1,973 geographic areas.
The Bureau of the Census then designs and selects a
sample consisting of 754 of these geographic areas
to represent each State and the District of
Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and
reflects urban and rural areas, different types of
industrial and farming areas, and the major
geographic divisions of each State.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm


So you are a LIAR.



It counts people who accepted jobs that pay a small
fraction of what they used to make because their unemployment ran out but
are still looking as employed.

Rightly so. Those people *are* employed.

Anyway, you don't have any idea how many people take a
job at "a fraction" of what they previously earned. It
isn't many.

Face the facts, Brent: You're trying to pretend that
there are many more unemployed than there really are,
and you simply are WRONG.

Brent P wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

No, it's the number of people

looking_for_employment/employed+looking_for_employment

If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!

It's not that simple.

It's that simple:

What are the basic concepts of employment and
unemployment?

The basic concepts involved in identifying the
employed and unemployed are quite simple:

* People with jobs are employed.
* People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and
available for work are unemployed.
* People who are neither employed nor unemployed are
not in the labor force.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

No, it's the number of people

looking_for_employment/employed+looking_for_employment

If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted as
unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!
It's not that simple. The formula is political and for instance does not
include people who have run out of unemployment benefits but are still
seeking employment.

You continue to demonstrate your total ignorance. People who's
unemployment benefits have run out are most certainly included in the
unemployment rate. And the unemployment benefit list is not even used
as part of the data collection, period. The unemployment rate is
calculated by a random survey of households, precisely to avoid the
problem above, which you falsely claim exists. Basicly, the survey
determines who has a job and who does not, but is looking for one.

Exactly right. In my own direct response to the little
sophomore, I posted the relevant material from the BLS
site that describes the methodology. The link is
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm, and the page is
entitled How the Government Measures Unemployment. It
states at the top that the underlying official document
was published in March 1994, and the procedures
followed are as of July 2001, but not much has changed.

You have to understand that the little sophomore,
Brent, is *ideologically* driven to claim that
unemployment statistics "don't fully capture" the true
numbers. He's *always* going to be ****ing and moaning
about underemployment (which is really a separate
issue), people who have given up looking for work,
etc., but *he* has absolutely no idea of the extent of
either of those; that is, he has no methodology *at
all*, just his idle and ideologically motivated conjecture.

Most often, you hear and read the comments of little
sophomores like Brent when a drop in the unemployment
rate is announced. Month on month, for months on end,
a drop in the unemployment rate is announced...and the
ideologically driven sophomores like Brent react, every
month, as if the "real" rate actually rose.



And only a nitwit would claim that the data collection and rate
calculation are "political", because the process is fair, reasonable
and has been done for decades, regardless of which party is in power.

And the perennial sophomore cannot identify EVEN ONE
modification to the methodology that he can
legitimately say was "politically motivated". He
merely asserts them, without evidence.


But why worry about the "rate", at all. Since you refuse to
acknowledge that economic statistics, like national debt or budget
deficit, need to be compared to anything relevant, you should simply
be arguing absolutes. There are more unemployed today than 100
years ago, so it's very, very, bad.






It counts people who accepted jobs that pay a small
fraction of what they used to make because their unemployment ran out but
are still looking as employed. There are a bunch more if-then-elses but
you can find those on your own time.

In article . net, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Bob F wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
This is elementary, little sophomore. If my income falls 10% but the
goods I wish to consume decline by 20% due to competition, I'm better
off.


Until you lose your job, then it's not so hot.

I wasn't talking about losing my job, and neither was
the little sophomore. We were only discussing whether
poor people are better off with low-price imports
coming into the country. They are.

They aren't for the very reason you were just told. Wage competition with
workers in places such as China makes more low income people here in the
USA. It's all well and good until you lose your job and end up making
less when you are competing wage wise with someone in China and further
find that the available labor here exceeds the demand further driving
down your wage.