In article . net, Rudy Canoza 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.

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.

But that is not the published unemployment rate by the government.

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.

Been that way for some time.

Here, you ideologically
motivated and economics-ignorant liar,

Hey asshole, the only 'ideology' here is the one you have and your
falsely painting me with the opposite one. That's a typical thing that
morons do.

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.

Note... It mentions the exact flaw I pointed out above. It doesn't go
into this number, I made a small error, but that doesn't change the
complexity of the calculation.

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.

So there is a survey involved with clever questions that produce the rate
when shoved into a computer program. It's even more complicated!

So you are a LIAR.

No, you're a moron and a LIAR. As seen by reading further in your own
cite!

Just to show you how complicated producing the rate is:

"Because these interviews are the basic source of data for total
unemployment, information must be factual and correct. Respondents are
never asked specifically if they are unemployed, nor are they given an
opportunity to decide their own labor force status. Unless they already
know how the Government defines unemployment, many of them may not be
sure of their actual classification when the interview is completed.

Similarly, interviewers do not decide the respondents' labor force
classification. They simply ask the questions in the prescribed way and
record the answers. Individuals are then classified as employed or
unemployed by the computer based on the information collected and the
definitions programmed into the computer."

That's from your cite, bright eyes. Much more complexity if you'd read
further.

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.

Not my fault you can't grasp the situation. When the average employment
pays less and less that is not healthy economy.

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.

I never claimed to know. By the way, you might want to look up the word
'many'. Why is it that you morons always need to assign me arguments I've
never made? Oh that's right, because you can't argue agianst my core
statements.

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

I haven't been trying to pretend anything of the sort. Of course you
knew that before typing that bit of dishonesty. I only stated that the
calculation is far more complex than you and your team members believe it
to be, which it is, as your own cite points out.

In article . net, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It's that simple:

See other post moron.

In article . net, Rudy Canoza wrote:

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.

What the **** is your problem asshole? What exactly is the root of the
mental defect that causes a person to instead of discussing and debating
something honestly causes this personal attack and assignment of views ?

It's entirely dishonest first of all, and secondly doesn't achieve
anything. All you do is insult and make up things to knock down.

I made one small error, however it doesn't change my core argument
regarding the complexity of the calculation one bit. In fact you just
proved that it is complex with the cite you chose.

But hey, you're a politically motivated moron obviously. As you and the
rest of your sock puppets here have decided to paint me as your political
opponent. Your projection and your methods tell far more than your words
ever will.

Since you've proven yourself incapable of rational discussion, you too
can join the kill file.

*PLONK*

Brent P wrote:
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

We are not and *never were* talking about loss of jobs, little
sophomore. We were talking about whether or not the low prices brought
about by imports from China were a good thing for low income American
workers. They are, without question.

If you're trying to talk now about loss of jobs, little sophomore,
that's an attempted goalpost move - disallowed.

Brent P wrote:
In article . net, Rudy Canoza wrote:

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.

What the **** is your problem asshole? What exactly is the root of the
mental defect that causes a person to instead of discussing and debating
something honestly causes this personal attack and assignment of views ?

Ha ha ha! You also don't get irony, do you, little sophomore? You say
"what the **** is your problem asshole" and accuse me of having a
mental defect, and you call *that* "discussing and debating something
honestly"? HA HA HA HA HA!



It's entirely dishonest first of all, and secondly doesn't achieve
anything. All you do is insult and make up things to knock down.

I made one small error,

You made ENORMOUS errors, little sophomore. The biggest error, of
course, is that you are letting your ideology talk, rather than any
knowledge of unemployment facts. One thing in all your ****ing and
moaning is very clear: you want to insist that the official
unemployment statistics grossly understate the amount of unemployment.
IN FACT, little sophomore, they do not, and you have presented
*nothing* to support your implied point. Note that I have said it is
your implied point, because I acknowledge that you have never
explicitly stated the official unemployment figures understate the
extent of unemployment. But everyone reading this thread *knows*
that's what you're implying. And you are.

In point of further fact, little sophomore, your claim that the
unemployment rate is based in any way on those who file for and collect
unemployment insurance benefits illustrates that you do not know WHAT
THE **** you are talking about. That is not a "small error", little
sophomore - it's huge.

Brent P wrote:
In article . net, Rudy Canoza 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.

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.

But that is not the published unemployment rate by the government.

Little sophomo if you're not employed or seeking employment, you
are *not* in the workforce. 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.

Been that way for some time.

FALSE, little sophomore. You are WRONG. It's a pity you didn't read
on before flying off the handle and looking stupid.



Here, you ideologically
motivated and economics-ignorant liar,

Hey asshole, the only 'ideology' here is the one you have

No, little sophomore - little stridently leftwing sophomore. YOU are
letting your poorly thought out leftwing ideology get in the way of any
real learning.



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.

Note... It mentions the exact flaw I pointed out above. It doesn't go
into this number, I made a small error, but that doesn't change the
complexity of the calculation.

STUPID ASSHOLE SOPHOMO The point of their "mention" is to REFUTE
what you said. You said that people who have run out of unemployment
benefits are not counted. YOU ARE WRONG, you little ****-4-braincell
ideologically blinded sophomore.



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.

So there is a survey involved with clever questions

"Clever questions" - what's the matter, little sophomore? What do you
think is "clever" about the questions, little sophomore? Do you even
know what they are? No, little sophomore, you don't. They are not
"clever", little sophomore - they are not designed or intended to
"trick" people into taking themselves out of the workforce.


that produce the rate
when shoved into a computer program. It's even more complicated!

So you are a LIAR.

No,

YES, little stupid sophomore. You claimed, as if you knew, that people
who have run out of unemployment benefits are not counted. YOU ARE
WRONG, stupid little sophomore.


Just to show you how complicated producing the rate is:

"Because these interviews are the basic source of data for total
unemployment, information must be factual and correct. Respondents are
never asked specifically if they are unemployed, nor are they given an
opportunity to decide their own labor force status. Unless they already
know how the Government defines unemployment, many of them may not be
sure of their actual classification when the interview is completed.

Similarly, interviewers do not decide the respondents' labor force
classification. They simply ask the questions in the prescribed way and
record the answers. Individuals are then classified as employed or
unemployed by the computer based on the information collected and the
definitions programmed into the computer."

That's from your cite, bright eyes. Much more complexity if you'd read
further.

What's the complexity, little sophomore? They are asked specific and
well designed questions that are intended to get subjectivity out of
the results. There is no judgment required on the part either of the
interviewer or the respondent.

The fact remains, little sophomore, that your claim about who is
included in the measure of unemployed persons is WRONG.

You're still evading the basic issue, little sophomore, which is: you
want to pretend the "real" unemployment rate is much higher than the
official rate, and you have NO BASIS for such a belief. That is, you
have no *legitimate* basis for it; your only basis for it is you
IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA.


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.

Not my fault you can't grasp the situation.

They're employed. That's all that matters, little sophomore. You
can't keep trying to move the goalposts this way, little sophomore - I
always catch it. We're talking about unemployment - period.


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.

I never claimed to know.

The clear implication of your ****ing and moaning, little sophomore, is
that there are a lot of such people. You have no basis for believing
that.


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

I haven't been trying to pretend anything of the sort.

Yes, you most certainly have. That's the entire point of your ****ing
and moaning.

Grow up, you little ****.

Brent P wrote:
In article . net, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It's that simple:

See other post moron.

I saw it, little sophomore ****bag, and it was empty.

"krw" wrote, "If you aren't seeking employment you are *NOT* counted
as unemployed. ...seems to make sense to me!" You stupidly wrote,
"it's not that simple". You are wrong, little sophomore - it *IS* that
simple! If you don't have a job *and* you are not looking for work,
then you aren't counted as unemployed. Simple. It really is. If you
say you would like to have a job, but you're not actively looking, then
you're not officially unemployed.

In article . com, Rudy Canoza wrote:


What the **** is your problem asshole? What exactly is the root of the
mental defect that causes a person to instead of discussing and debating
something honestly causes this personal attack and assignment of views ?

Ha ha ha! You also don't get irony, do you, little sophomore? You say
"what the **** is your problem asshole" and accuse me of having a
mental defect, and you call *that* "discussing and debating something
honestly"? HA HA HA HA HA!

I also see you changed emails to cut through the kill file again.

*PLONK*

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, Rudy Canoza wrote:


What the **** is your problem asshole? What exactly is the root of the
mental defect that causes a person to instead of discussing and debating
something honestly causes this personal attack and assignment of views ?

Ha ha ha! You also don't get irony, do you, little sophomore? You say
"what the **** is your problem asshole" and accuse me of having a
mental defect, and you call *that* "discussing and debating something
honestly"? HA HA HA HA HA!

I also see you changed emails to cut through the kill file again.

Wrong, little sophomore.

Little sophomore, don't you understand that announcing your killfiling
is an act of juvenile arrogance? No one cares whom you do or don't
read, little sophomore. Anyway, little sophomore, you have replied to
the same e-mail addresses at least half a dozen times after announcing
that you're not going to reply any more. That makes you a liar, little
sophomore.

You're running away, little sophomore, because you can't defend your
ideological stance that you're trying to pass off as some kind of
objective claim. Typical.

In article .com, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Wrong, little sophomore.

This is your third email change under the name 'rudy', sockpuppet.

Little sophomore, don't you understand that announcing your killfiling
is an act of juvenile arrogance?

It's a fair notice.

No one cares whom you do or don't
read, little sophomore.

You do.

Anyway, little sophomore, you have replied to
the same e-mail addresses at least half a dozen times after announcing
that you're not going to reply any more. That makes you a liar, little
sophomore.

You keep changing name and address, you obviously want my attention.

"Leif Erikson"

Leif Erikson
Rudy Canoza
Rudy Canoza"

You're running away, little sophomore, because you can't defend your
ideological stance that you're trying to pass off as some kind of
objective claim. Typical.

You mean defend the ideological stance you want me to defend. Of course
not, strawmen cannot be defended, that's why weakminded people like
yourself use them. The only defense is to simply ignore people like yourself.

Further changes in email address will be ignored without notice.

Oh, this is just too funny. Let's review here. Brent claimed that
the unemployment number is in error, because it doesn't count people
who's unemployment benefits have run out. So, you show Brent the link
to the BLS that describes:

1 - How BLS actually uses a random survey to determine the unemployment
rate, as we both told him is done.

2 - How some people incorrectly believe that they use unemployment
claims to deteremine the number, which is exactly what Brent claimed


And his response:

"Note... It mentions the exact flaw I pointed out above. It doesn't go
into this number, I made a small error, but that doesn't change the
complexity of the calculation. "


There is no flaw because BLS uses a methodology specifically designed
to avoid the very flaw Brent claimed existed in their calculation.
This isn't a small error, it was the core of his whole claim that
somehow the unemployment report is miscalculated and political. And it
shows how he just shoots from the hip, makes wild assertions, and then
can't even own up to them when proven wrong in black and white.


And to top it off, he's still claiming that we keep putting things up,
to knock them down? He's the clown that keeps putting up fiction,
that is easy to demolish. At least he didn't say STRAWMAN this time.

I do have to disagree on one point though. He's not a sophomore.
He's a complete idiot!

Brent P wrote:
In article .com, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Wrong, little sophomore.

This is your third email change under the name 'rudy', sockpuppet.

Deal with it, little sophomore. And you've misused "sockpuppet".



Little sophomore, don't you understand that announcing your killfiling
is an act of juvenile arrogance?

It's a fair notice.

No, it's stupid and arrogant. If you don't want to read someone's
posts, just don't read them.


No one cares whom you do or don't
read, little sophomore.

You do.

Nope.


Anyway, little sophomore, you have replied to
the same e-mail addresses at least half a dozen times after announcing
that you're not going to reply any more. That makes you a liar, little
sophomore.

You keep changing name and address, you obviously want my attention.

"Leif Erikson"


That's someone else.


Leif Erikson
Rudy Canoza
Rudy Canoza"

You're running away, little sophomore, because you can't defend your
ideological stance that you're trying to pass off as some kind of
objective claim. Typical.

You mean defend the ideological stance you want me to defend.

No, the ideological stance that underlies all your posts on this topic.
You've been spouting a very standard leftwing platform regarding
trade, employment, debt and so on. Most recently, on this narrow issue
of unemployment, you've been ****ing and moaning about the official
unemployment rate statistics, and implicit in your ****ing and moaning
is your belief that the figures understate "true" unemployment. Your
reason for believing this is plainly based on your leftist ideology.

You have to understand, little sophomore, that I've dealt with little
sophomores like you for many years, and I have become very adept at
reading between the lines. I *know* you, little sophomore, and I know
why you're ****ing and moaning about unemployment rates. The
unemployment rate, and the number of unemployed, both have been falling
under a Republican administration that is more market oriented than the
leftwing statist administration you would prefer to see (but they're
not nearly market oriented enough.) You are blatantly ideological and
partisan, and you simply can't keep your mouth shut if some good
economic news happens under an administration you find ideologically
unacceptable, so you have to try to "reinterpret" the announcements.

The *FACT* is, little sophomore, that although you wish to claim the
official unemployment rate understates the "real" rate, you have *NO
IDEA* what the real rate is. The further *FACT* is, little sophomore,
that your basis for believing that the official rate is an
understatement is BULL****, and we saw that it is bull**** when you
made your colossal error of saying that people whose unemployment
benefits have run out are not counted. They *ARE* counted, little
sophomore - so everything you wrongly think you know about the rate
calculation goes right down the ****ter.

It's time for you to concede, little sophomore.

wrote:
Oh, this is just too funny. Let's review here. Brent claimed that
the unemployment number is in error, because it doesn't count people
who's unemployment benefits have run out. So, you show Brent the link
to the BLS that describes:

1 - How BLS actually uses a random survey to determine the unemployment
rate, as we both told him is done.

2 - How some people incorrectly believe that they use unemployment
claims to deteremine the number, which is exactly what Brent claimed


And his response:

"Note... It mentions the exact flaw I pointed out above. It doesn't go
into this number, I made a small error, but that doesn't change the
complexity of the calculation. "


There is no flaw because BLS uses a methodology specifically designed
to avoid the very flaw Brent claimed existed in their calculation.
This isn't a small error, it was the core of his whole claim that
somehow the unemployment report is miscalculated and political. And it
shows how he just shoots from the hip, makes wild assertions, and then
can't even own up to them when proven wrong in black and white.

Exactly right. He made a HUGE error, and his error was driven by his
ideological *need* to invalidate good economic news that occurs under
an administration he loathes on ideological grounds.




And to top it off, he's still claiming that we keep putting things up,
to knock them down? He's the clown that keeps putting up fiction,
that is easy to demolish. At least he didn't say STRAWMAN this time.

I do have to disagree on one point though. He's not a sophomore.
He's a complete idiot!

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brent P wrote:
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

We are not and *never were* talking about loss of jobs, little
sophomore. We were talking about whether or not the low prices brought
about by imports from China were a good thing for low income American
workers. They are, without question.


The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take advantage
of those prices. Buy cheap imported - lose your job. Q.E.D.

You can ignore this in your discussion if you like. But real people
have to look at all the issues.

Bob

Rudy Canoza wrote:

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.

Have you forgotten how to read? You have no idea what you're talking
about.

trent

trent wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
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.

Have you forgotten how to read? You have no idea what you're talking
about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You and that
ideological moron Brent don't understand ratios and rates.

Bob F wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brent P wrote:
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
We are not and *never were* talking about loss of jobs, little
sophomore. We were talking about whether or not the low prices brought
about by imports from China were a good thing for low income American
workers. They are, without question.


The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take advantage
of those prices.

No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
have jobs.


Buy cheap imported - lose your job. Q.E.D.

False.



You can ignore this in your discussion if you like. But real people
have to look at all the issues.

I am looking at all the issues.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

trent wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
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.

Have you forgotten how to read? You have no idea what you're talking
about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You and that
ideological moron Brent don't understand ratios and rates.


I'll make this so plainly simply, that even your pea-brain will
understand it- the maybe you'll go back and READ THE ****ING POST!


YOU AND I WERE SAYING THE SAME THING!


There, did you inderstand that? Now go back and read the post, which is
what you should have done before you took your fist out of your ass and
started typing with it.


If your metrics are as thorough as your posting, you must be quite an
economist.



trent

In chi.general Leif Erikson wrote:
: Brent P wrote:
: 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

: We are not and *never were* talking about loss of jobs, little
: sophomore. We were talking about whether or not the low prices brought
: about by imports from China were a good thing for low income American
: workers. They are, without question.

Deflation is never a good thing... prices should be staying the same or
rising slightly... now, the fact that you have a bunch of cheap quality stuff
selling at what might be slightly cheaper than decent stuff isn't a problem
per se, however, I'm not sure any low income person who bought a Yugo in
the 80's came out of it better than someone who bought a Honda that same year.
One might say they paid the same or more by the time they were done with the
Yugo, or perhaps when the Yugo was done with them... In the end, the guy with
the Honda probably sold it for $2500, whereas the guy with the Yugo might have
gotten $80 from Liberty Junkyard...

They are selling to the buy it now mentality, but it's not just buy it now,
it's buy it often... The only thing they are selling is landfill, because
it'll be in landfills quicker than the higher quality stuff because it's not
worth repairing when it has problems...

Sadly, we live in a disposable world now, and the junk electronics that comes
in might last a year or two, but most is tossed within 5.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06230.html list a extension cord
where a UL label was added to the product without authorization... the product
is being recalled due to risk of shock or fire...

Would it hurt a low income person to buy a $.79 extension cord and lose
everything they own to a fire?

http://www.ul.com/ace/program.html discusses the UL anti-counterfeiting
program;

" Q. Where do counterfeit products come from?

A. Most counterfeit electrical products come from China. "

It costs U.S. companies $'s. It's not enough for UL to do their job, they
also have to be on the lookout for other people creating unauthorized products
using their logo... logos cost $'s...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../i_ins.00.html

"... U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: We know that the global problem is probably $600
billion or more in magnitude, of which China represents 60 percent of the
global problem. It's being manufactured in China, counterfeited and piracy,
it's being exported around the world and certainly into the U.S. market. So
the U.S. companies are very concerned. ..."

"... Everybody has a little bit of larceny in them. Everybody likes a good
deal. But this is no different than a guy who takes a gun, walks into a
little shop and holds it up and says "Give me your money." ..."

"... Pirated running shoes are one thing. Running pirated software is another.
It takes a lot of time, investment and expertise to develop software, though
not necessarily in China. A trade group known as the Business Software
Alliance estimates that 90 percent of all the software in China's computers
is pirated. It's not only illegal, it's an inexpensive and efficient way to
make China more competitive. Cut-rate software means Chinese businesses can
run better. ..."

: If you're trying to talk now about loss of jobs, little sophomore,
: that's an attempted goalpost move - disallowed.

I don't think loss of jobs is moving the goalpost, it's related to the problem.
For the United States to be a superpower, it needs it's manufacturing base.

Think back to the United Kingdom, it was once a world powerhouse, then over
time it's manfacturing base eroded... today Tony Blair is George Bush's "Yes
man". We don't want to be Hu Juntao's or Zeng Qunghong's "Yes man".

--
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 . net, Rudy
Canoza wrote in part:

No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People have jobs.

Post-1975 unemployment low was about 4%, achieved in Clinton's second
term (with Congress dominated by opposing party).

During most of the 1950's and 1960's, unemployment rate closer to 3% was
considered reasonably non-inflationary.

I have noticed correlation between budget balance and "minimum
adequately non-inflationary unemployment rate". 3% unemployment was
widely mentioned as reasonably achievable in the 1950's and 1960's, when
ratio of USA's national debt to DGP was decreasing.

After Carter took office and he worse than any of presidents before
him presided over blowups of defense and non-defense spending, and annual
Federal deficits had norm becoming over $50B, people wondered how USA
coulod get inflation over 5% and unemployment over 5% at the same time,
worse still for years in a row.

During the Reagan administration annual Federal budget deficits
ballonned to $200B-plus from sub-$100B! Reagan was feared to balance the
budget on the backs of the poor - but instead, he submitted to Congress
budget requests in most years of his administration with deficits twice or
more the worst that occurred under Carter! And from that time on through
the continuingly-$300B-ballpark-annual-deficit-ridden Bush I era, Wall St
liked to talk about lowest adequately non-inflationary unemployment being
about 6%.

Go forward to Clinton's second term, when USA enjoyed general lack of
annual Federal budget deficits due to Republican-Democrat gridlock
blocking spending and tax cuts. One of the fiscal years in that era even
had a surplus when Social Security is not counted! And interest rates
dipped to close to lowest between 40 years ago and now, and unemployment
by the usual measures dipped to about 4% with inflation considered
reasonably low or no to worse than average of the post-Reagan or
Eisenhower-Nixon eras!

As for how this can happen:

Bond investors (as in mainly ones owning a lot of bonds) hate inflation.
They enjoy recessions! Even more "Scroogily" than stock holders, they
equate working class wage level with inflation.

Now, for function of the Federal Reserve Board: That agency has a
requirement of maintaining monetary policy to adequately work against
inflation and also make the USA's economy as favorable as they can.
But when they have to sell bonds (to raise money to pay annual deficits),
they more have to please the Scroogier-than-most-other-WallSt-type bond
investors. When lower deficits reduce the Fed's need to please bond
investors, the Fed next needs to answer to its politician ultimate
supervisors, so the Federal Reserve Board is faced with a need to as best
as they can do so maintain the economy at a heat setting as hot as they
can maintain and sell as being maintainable. But I see that as Priority
2, behind need to sell Treasuty Bonds (borrow money) when Congress and the
President find need to spend much more than they take from taxes.

- Don Klipstein )

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

: We are not and *never were* talking about loss of jobs, little
: sophomore. We were talking about whether or not the low prices brought
: about by imports from China were a good thing for low income American
: workers. They are, without question.

Deflation is never a good thing... prices should be staying the same or
rising slightly...

Deflation being as common and healthy as inflation requires pay cuts to
be as common and as acceptable as raises. (Maybe allow zero inflation
with more raises than pay cuts if workers and other income receivers in
general increase their productivity to an extent to support such!) Until
such time, expect at least a little inflation!

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Don Klipstein wrote:

annual Federal budget deficits due to Republican-Democrat gridlock
blocking spending and tax cuts. One of the fiscal years in that era even
had a surplus when Social Security is not counted!

I've looked at countless government websites in the past and the best I
could find pre social security was a very slight (by government money
standards) deficit. Something like 7 billion as I recall. With social
security it was a sizable surplus.

However, this doesn't change your overall point at all. It's the same be
it a slight surplus or slight deficit.

I'll make this so plainly simply, that even your pea-brain will
understand it- the maybe you'll go back and READ THE ****ING POST!


YOU AND I WERE SAYING THE SAME THING!


There, did you inderstand that? Now go back and read the post, which is
what you should have done before you took your fist out of your ass and
started typing with it.


If your metrics are as thorough as your posting, you must be quite an
economist.



trent



Trent, below I recapped the exchange that started all this:

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.


It's not clear what you meant when, in response to my post, you stated
"You should check again, maybe with the BLS." But I think a
reasonable person would interpret it to mean that you were challenging
my comment that the number of unemployed is higher today than it was
100 years ago. That's what Rudy thought it meant. And that's what it
looked like to me too.

So, I don't see the reason for all the vulagrity directed at Rudy. A
better approach would have been to simply explain what it was that you
meant. Despite your proclaiming it's obvious, and Rudy is just dense, I
too have no idea of what it is you meant or why you are so angry.

trent wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
trent wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
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.
Have you forgotten how to read? You have no idea what you're talking
about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. You and that
ideological moron Brent don't understand ratios and rates.


I'll make this so plainly simply, that even your pea-brain will
understand it- the maybe you'll go back and READ THE ****ING POST!

I read it the first time, stupid. Trader4 wrote,
"Following [Brent's] 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." In reply, you wrote, "You should
check again, maybe with the BLS." Reads to me as if
you are focusing on the absolute number of unemployed,
which is, as Trader4 and I both have said, looking at
the wrong thing.

Brent P wrote:
In article , Don Klipstein wrote:

annual Federal budget deficits due to Republican-Democrat gridlock
blocking spending and tax cuts. One of the fiscal years in that era even
had a surplus when Social Security is not counted!

I've looked at countless government websites in the past and the best I
could find pre social security was a very slight (by government money
standards) deficit. Something like 7 billion as I recall. With social
security it was a sizable surplus.

You *STILL* are looking at it incorrectly, stupid.
You're still looking at the absolute level.

Here's a little test for you, stupid. In 1943, the
federal budget deficit was $54.6 billion. In 2004 it
was some $500 billion. Which was "worse"? Here's a
bonus question: in 1983 the deficit was $207 billion.
Was 2004's deficit "better" or "worse" than 1983's?

I know you can get this one wrong as well, dummy.
Don't disappoint us.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873

The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
advantage
of those prices.

No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
have jobs.

If you consider $6/hour a job.

Bob

Bob F wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
advantage
of those prices.
No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
have jobs.

If you consider $6/hour a job.

If you work some minimum number of hours at it - I
forget if it's 20 or 25 - then it is considered
full-time employment by the BLS.

You do not have a "right" to a high wage job.

In chi.general Don Klipstein wrote:
: In article , Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
:In chi.general Leif Erikson wrote:
:: Brent P wrote:
:: 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
:
:: We are not and *never were* talking about loss of jobs, little
:: sophomore. We were talking about whether or not the low prices brought
:: about by imports from China were a good thing for low income American
:: workers. They are, without question.
:
:Deflation is never a good thing... prices should be staying the same or
:rising slightly...

: Deflation being as common and healthy as inflation requires pay cuts to
: be as common and as acceptable as raises. (Maybe allow zero inflation
: with more raises than pay cuts if workers and other income receivers in
: general increase their productivity to an extent to support such!) Until
: such time, expect at least a little inflation!

http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/07/news...tion/index.htm
"... For example, deflation has crippled Japan's economy, the world's
second-largest, since the mid-1990s, severely worsening that nation's
post-boom recession.

Many pundits pooh-pooh efforts to compare the United States to Japan, saying
the deflationary death spiral that crippled Japan could never do the same
thing to the world's biggest economy, in the United States.

Though it's true that there are important fundamental differences between the
two nations, there are plenty of alarming similarities. Both had large
asset-price bubbles, both had central banks that raised interest rates and
popped those bubbles, both had companies and households saddled with debt,
and both suffered from a period when companies overspent followed by a period
of miserly corporate investment.

"There is much to learn from Japan," Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein global
strategist Albert Edwards said in a research note. "It is not Mars." ..."

--
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)

"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" wrote in message
...
In chi.general Don Klipstein wrote:
: In article , Chicago Paddling-Fishing
wrote:
:In chi.general Leif Erikson wrote:
:: Brent P wrote:
:: 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
:
:: We are not and *never were* talking about loss of jobs, little
:: sophomore. We were talking about whether or not the low prices
brought
:: about by imports from China were a good thing for low income American
:: workers. They are, without question.
:
:Deflation is never a good thing... prices should be staying the same or
:rising slightly...

: Deflation being as common and healthy as inflation requires pay cuts
to
: be as common and as acceptable as raises. (Maybe allow zero inflation
: with more raises than pay cuts if workers and other income receivers in
: general increase their productivity to an extent to support such!)
Until
: such time, expect at least a little inflation!

http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/07/news...tion/index.htm
"... For example, deflation has crippled Japan's economy, the world's
second-largest, since the mid-1990s, severely worsening that nation's
post-boom recession.

Many pundits pooh-pooh efforts to compare the United States to Japan,
saying
the deflationary death spiral that crippled Japan could never do the same
thing to the world's biggest economy, in the United States.

Though it's true that there are important fundamental differences between
the
two nations, there are plenty of alarming similarities. Both had large
asset-price bubbles, both had central banks that raised interest rates and
popped those bubbles, both had companies and households saddled with debt,
and both suffered from a period when companies overspent followed by a
period
of miserly corporate investment.

"There is much to learn from Japan," Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein global
strategist Albert Edwards said in a research note. "It is not Mars." ..."

And never is a long time.

In article ,
says...

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873

The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
advantage
of those prices.

No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
have jobs.

If you consider $6/hour a job.

Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
the reduction in the capital gains tax?

--
Keith

In chi.general krw wrote:
: In article ,
: says...
:
: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
:
: The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
: is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
: advantage
: of those prices.
:
: No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
: have jobs.
:
: If you consider $6/hour a job.

: Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
: the reduction in the capital gains tax?

Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxstats/...,00.html#_grp3

Year Taxable Returns Taxable Income
---- --------------- -----------------
2004 89,101,934 6,265,500,376,xxx
2003 88,921,904 5,746,568,751,xxx
2002 90,963,896 5,641,127,689,xxx
2001 94,763,530 5,847,060,064,xxx
2000 96,817,603 6,083,262,832,xxx
1999 94,546,080 5,580,849,494,xxx
1998 93,029,842 3,747,654,022,xxx
1997 93,371,200 4,765,197,106,xxx
1996 90,929,350 4,341,870,603,xxx

(Note: I stuck ",xxx" at the end as legend said $ amounts were in 1000's)

The IRS website doesn't have stats for 2005 in non-hazardous form. They do
offer a 2005 .exe, but the IRS is the last place I'd download a .exe from...

--
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:
Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

The more dangerous thing about the Bush tax cuts that is rarely mentioned
is that they made it such that less people are paying income taxes. With
deductions for kids and whatever else many more people end up paying any
income tax at all.

That only explains why there are fewer people paying taxes however.

Why it's dangerous is that when a lot of people don't pay taxes they have
no problem supporting taxes on the people who do. But that's a future
worry, not an answer to the question.

The reason may be simply, the rich get richer.

Brent P wrote:

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

The more dangerous thing about the Bush tax cuts that is rarely mentioned
is that they made it such that less people are paying income taxes. With
deductions for kids and whatever else many more people end up paying any
income tax at all.

That only explains why there are fewer people paying taxes however.

Why it's dangerous is that when a lot of people don't pay taxes they have
no problem supporting taxes on the people who do. But that's a future
worry, not an answer to the question.

The reason may be simply, the rich get richer.

the loudest proponents of our recently passed school bond were the
affluent with their vast sums of cash. the bond is the prefect tax
shelter for those people. municipal bonds in the state, for residents
of the state are tax free. ok, so now the uninformed have provided
another place for the rich to get richer and as awful as this might seem,
to some the worst and most unpleasant effect produced by the passage of
this bond is the providing of new schools thus attracting trillions more
yankee sodomites who will stink up the air with their yankee sodomite smell.

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

In article , says...
In chi.general krw wrote:
: In article ,
: says...
:
: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
:
: The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
: is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
: advantage
: of those prices.
:
: No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
: have jobs.
:
: If you consider $6/hour a job.

: Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
: the reduction in the capital gains tax?

Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

Perhaps because the tax system is progressive like never before
(10% of the people pay over half the taxes)?

I do note that you posted income stats, yet argue taxes.

snip stats

--
Keith

Jim wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...
The more dangerous thing about the Bush tax cuts that is rarely mentioned
is that they made it such that less people are paying income taxes. With
deductions for kids and whatever else many more people end up paying any
income tax at all.

That only explains why there are fewer people paying taxes however.

Why it's dangerous is that when a lot of people don't pay taxes they have
no problem supporting taxes on the people who do. But that's a future
worry, not an answer to the question.

The reason may be simply, the rich get richer.

the loudest proponents of our recently passed school bond were the
affluent with their vast sums of cash. the bond is the prefect tax
shelter for those people. municipal bonds in the state, for residents
of the state are tax free.

Municipal bonds pay a much lower rate of interest to
reflect their tax-free status, jimmie, you stupid
cornholing filthy hick cracker.

In article , Jim wrote:

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

I'm guessing you are refering to people from new england moving to where
ever it is you are. Look at the tax rates in New England. That's what
they are running from more than likely.

In article ,
says...
In article , Jim wrote:

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

I'm guessing you are refering to people from new england moving to where
ever it is you are. Look at the tax rates in New England. That's what
they are running from more than likely.

Yeah, maybe Jim wants to pay my tax bills. ;-)

--
Keith

In chi.general krw wrote:
: In article , says...
: In chi.general krw wrote:
: : In article ,
: : says...
: :
: : "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
: :
: : The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
: : is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
: : advantage
: : of those prices.
: :
: : No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
: : have jobs.
: :
: : If you consider $6/hour a job.
:
: : Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
: : the reduction in the capital gains tax?
:
: Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that fewer
: people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

: Perhaps because the tax system is progressive like never before
: (10% of the people pay over half the taxes)?

: I do note that you posted income stats, yet argue taxes.

: snip stats

I did because I was replying to someone who posted that tax receipts were
at all time highs... he is correct as I posted the number of taxable returns
and taxable $'s... This is a breakdown for 2004 of how taxable income spread.

I added ",xxx.xx" to the end of the $ amounts as they are in thousands.


Size of Number Adjusted
adjusted gross of gross income
income returns less deficit
----------------------------- ----------- --------------------
All returns, total 132,226,042 6,788,805,130,xxx.xx
No adjusted gross income 1,854,886 -86,318,215,xxx.xx
$1 under $5,000 11,670,444 31,096,322,xxx.xx
$5,000 under $10,000 12,135,417 90,875,411,xxx.xx
$10,000 under $15,000 11,656,193 145,142,372,xxx.xx
$15,000 under $20,000 11,281,291 197,081,478,xxx.xx
$20,000 under $25,000 9,705,192 217,844,558,xxx.xx
$25,000 under $30,000 8,512,113 233,540,422,xxx.xx
$30,000 under $40,000 13,915,452 482,760,301,xxx.xx
$40,000 under $50,000 10,571,408 473,380,843,xxx.xx
$50,000 under $75,000 18,047,126 1,109,616,155,xxx.xx
$75,000 under $100,000 10,119,515 872,398,173,xxx.xx
$100,000 under $200,000 9,735,569 1,288,319,611,xxx.xx
$200,000 under $500,000 2,348,163 676,794,600,xxx.xx
$500,000 under $1,000,000 433,145 293,369,864,xxx.xx
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 103,964 125,552,749,xxx.xx
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 45,104 77,754,757,xxx.xx
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 65,548 194,470,800,xxx.xx
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 15,835 108,191,995,xxx.xx
$10,000,000 or more 9,677 256,932,933,xxx.xx
Taxable returns, total 89,101,934 6,265,500,376,xxx.xx
Nontaxable returns, total 43,124,107 523,304,754,xxx.xx

One thing I found was interesting... the above is from a wide spreadsheet
with lots of catagories... people who earn over $500k don't pay rent for
farms, they have lots of dividends and they do collect social security ,
they don't pay penalties for early withdraw of savings and they always
itemize deductions...

Folks in the $10,000,000 seem to win a lot of $'s in gambling (296 returns
listed $2,314,674,xxx in gambling earnings (perhaps those are the lotto
winners?)

--
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)

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
Bob F wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
advantage
of those prices.
No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
have jobs.

If you consider $6/hour a job.

If you work some minimum number of hours at it - I
forget if it's 20 or 25 - then it is considered
full-time employment by the BLS.

You do not have a "right" to a high wage job.

No, you don't. But that's what is replacing all the good
jobs that are being sent overseas, with the enthusiastic
support of the current administration. And just because
they say unenployment is low, doesn't mean that americans
are well off. When you lose a good paying job, and take
a minimum wage job, you can thank policies that give tax
breaks to corporations that relocate overseas.

Bob

"krw" wrote in message
: If you consider $6/hour a job.

: Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
: the reduction in the capital gains tax?

Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that
fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

Perhaps because the tax system is progressive like never before
(10% of the people pay over half the taxes)?

I do note that you posted income stats, yet argue taxes.

snip stats

--
Keith