| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2007/9/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:47896 Activity:very high |
9/4 "Annual job growth has definitely not reached pre-recession levels in
1990s. In California, 200,000 jobs were added last year compared to
400,000 (annually) between 1997 and 2000. In the United States, we're
still nowhere where we were in annual job additions as a whole." The
200,000 increase was unable to keep up with the state's increasing
population, with unemployment jumping to 5.2 percent in the last 12
months from 4.9 percent the previous year. The same holds true for
wages. While earnings rose by 0.4 percent between 2006 and 2007
nationwide, the biggest increase in five years, in California real
wages fell by 0.8 percent. Statewide, wages are 1 percent lower in 2007
than in 2003.
-Arindrajit Dube, UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
\_ You mean the economy of the 90s that was based on nothing, like
http://pets.com? And "jumped" to 5.2%? I thought that was theoretically
full employment. Or are we supposed to ignore the unemployment rate
only when it's going down?
\_ From poking around http://www.bls.gov/lau (regional
resources there on the right) it looks like unemplyment
is due for a serious upswing soon. One thing to note
about those graphs, if you look at the cycles they have
they are pretty cyclical, but the unemployment percentages
have been trending down over the years. That's because
politicians have had a strong intrest in redefining unemployment
so that the numbers come out lower. In the 70s it was a hell
of a lot easier to be classified as unemployed than it is now.
\_ Screw your predictions. Let us know when it actually happens.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/3asgnu
Tell me that doesn't look like the start of a big jump.
\_ Oh good grief. You can't extrapolate 100 data points from
3 (numbers pulled out of my ass).
\_ I'm not saying it is a sure thing, but I'd bet even
money on it. In a heartbeat.
\_ This bet is looking better and better:
http://www.csua.org/u/jgl
\_ I read this morning that for the first time since 2001, Japan
and a few EU countries might have exceeded US GDP growth. So
clearly the non-US countries have the right economic plans in
place. It just took 6+ years to see the positive results.
\_ Japan's GDP growth has a lot to do with trade surplus against
China. And China can only afford such trade plus because
*ITS* trade surplus against USA. So, in that regard,
you should give yourself a bit more credit. Now, please
go ahead take out another equity loans for the sake of global
economy growth.
\_ Umm.. I don't think that follows, exactly.
\_ This. Is. MOTD!! Where non sequitur rules!
\_ What has GDP/capita growth been like in those countries?
Who really cares if the nations overall GDP has gone up
if all that has just been due to population growth? Most of
Europe has beaten US GDP/capita growth for about three
years. And even Japan is starting to beat us now.
\_ 5.2% is a cooked figure that does not include all the out
of work illegals. According to The Economist, if we used
the pre-Clinton way of counting unemployment, it would
be about 1.5% higher. Most economists these days discount
the idea of "full employment" after the decade long period
of 4% unemployment and low inflation in the 90s. How man
people do you think actually worked at http://pets.com and other
<DEAD>dot.com<DEAD>s? It was a pretty small part of the economy.
\_ Pre-Clinton? You mean Bush/Reagan? 6.7% is still lower
\_ Pre-Clinton? You mean Bush/R \_ Pre-Clinton? You mean B\
ush/Reagan? 6.7% is still lower
than anywhere in Europe yet their economies and health plans
are stronger than here so we should be emulating their
success.
\_ No, there are many countries in Europe with an
unemployment rate less than 6.7 or even 5.2. Try
Ireland, The Netherlands and Switzerland, to start.
And it was Clinton who really started fudging the
numbers, not Reagan.
\_ Those are not big economies. My village of 12 people
has a 0% jobless rate. And I don't know about the
other two but Ireland is hardly known for their high
productivity, hard work, and strong work ethic. Take
a look at real countries like Germany and France.
\_ What benefit do hard work and a strong work ethic
bring to the citizens of a country? Other than
more work. -tom
\_ Prosperity. Or we could all just live off the
government dole with magically created food,
housing, and other products. Where do you come
up with this stuff? Is there some web site
where I can just pre-read all this bizareness?
\_ The countries in western Europe are plenty
prosperous. And they're more productive
than the U.S. on a per-hour-worked basis. -tom
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html?ref=business
-- ilyas
\_ hi ilyas my elisp killed your url.
sorry.
\_ So you have the 5 seconds to apologize
but not 5 seconds to put the url back?
It's this btw:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html
ERROR: Moved Temporarily
If your scripts are broken don't use
them. -- ilyas
\_ my url shorterner really hates
that url. very very odd.
\_ Not only are you wrong about current
productivity but western europe's socialist
system is headed towards complete collapse
as the number of workers per slacker has
dropped dramatically in the last few
decades. But nevermind all those pesky
facts. The government will just raise
someone else's taxes and magically provide
the rest of us with all we need from cradle
to grave.
\_ Usenet libertarians have been predicting
the imminent collapse of "socialist
Europe" since at least 1989. Since
then, if anything, they have been
catching up to the US.
\_ Catching up in what way? Europe
will collapse before the US
does. They have already started
cutting services.
\_ Median GDP per person as a
percentage of the US median GDP.
How would you measure "catching
up"?
\_ I didn't see what you were
getting at. I don't think
median GDP per person is
useful in this sense. What
is important is to look at
outlays versus expenditures,
especially commitments
that have been made. If
GDP doubles, but outlays
will triple then Europe
will still go broke.
\_ If their economy is growing
faster than ours, it is
pretty hard to make the
case that it is collapsing.
No one (no one who is
intellectually serious at
least) believes that govt
outlays will exceed the
size of the economy.
\_ Of course not, because
they will be cut before
then as is already
happening. When
those outlays shrink
then, surprise!,
socialism becomes
strikingly similar
to what we have in
the US currently. It
is impossible to
continue with the
current European model.
You should look at
"profit" as defined
by GDP growth minus
growth of outlays at
the current level of
benefits. I am betting
this is a negative number.
\_ Not a chance that this
is a negative number
since 1989.
\_ What makes you
say this? France's
2% GDP growth?
This chart doesn't
show what I'd like,
but it still shows
that France is
borrowing heavily:
http://tinyurl.com/23d4ny
ERROR: Don't shorten\
urls from other shortening services
BTW, the unfunded
SS liability in
France is 2x that
of the USA.
Yes, that chart doesn't show what you'd like_/
In fact, it shows the exact opposite of what
you'd like. It shows that public deficit
peaked at 5.9% in 1993 and since then has
more or less steadily been going down to
the current level of 2.5%. Unless taxes
have been going up (hint: they have not)
the "growth of outlays" as you put it
has been negative. So GDP (per capita,
because that is what really matters)
minus growth of outlays (which has been
negative) is quite strongly positive.
How do I know this? Because I pay
attention to stuff like this, that's
why. The government's expenditures as
a percentage of the total economy has
been trending down for a while in Europe,
which is the exact opposite of your
thesis.
http://qsi.cc/blog/pictures/GovConsShareofGDP.gif
link:xrl.us/5puc
\_ France reformed its SS system, so that could be why
expenditures have been less. It could be because they
cut other programs like defense. We don't know from
this data. However, cuts will continue to happen. If you
look at your own chart you will see that expenditure
is flat from 1991 to 2002 (slightly higher for France,
actually). As for the chart I showed, that is the
deficit each year. The country is in the red every
year. How many years can that continue? Sure, they are
better off now than in 1993, but essentially flat since
1990. In fact, the deficit exceeded that of 1990 in
15 of 18 years. When a country runs a deficit every
year that means the current model is not sustainable.
I have an aunt and many cousins in France and two aunts
and a cousin in Holland and they all say that the level
of government services that they had in the 1970s and
1980s does not exist anymore. They blame the influx of
immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. Regardless
of who is to blame, the socialist utopia is breaking
down and I think it will ultimately erode almost to the
point of the US system. It is ironic that so many in
the US wish to emulate them when their governments are
trying to emulate us (though it is a hard sell to
people used to being on the dole). My Dutch cousin, a
teacher by trade but an artist and author in an ideal
world, was made to go back to work for the first time
in her life (she's 45). She had worked when she wanted
and took time off (paid for the government, of course)
to do art and write when she wanted. Needless to say,
she eventually didn't bother teaching at all. Why would
you when you get checks and an apartment for nothing?
Well, the government finally (after the last reform)
told her they needed teachers, she wasn't injured and
to get her butt back to work. The horror! Oh she was so
mad! It's just another sign that things are not how
they used to be and I think that is good for the
Europeans, many of whom had gotten lazy.
\_ The plural of anecdote is not data. What other
major economic power has run a budget deficit every
single year (except one) for the last 20 years? Hint:
you don't have to look too far to find it. The EU has
huge efficiencies that that US does not, which I will
not bother trying to explain to you, since your mind
is already made up, in the abscence of any factual
information whatsover. In any case, my prediction is
that the US and EU economies will converge, and that
neither one will "collapse", which is your prediction.
Let's watch and see who is correct, shall we?
\_ The EU will collapse *unless they change what
they are doing*. If they converge with the US
then of course they won't collapse. However,
that's not status quo now is it? The US is
running debts because of defense spending and not
because of social programs. I have anecdotal
evidence *and* data. You don't have either. have
you ever been to Europe? Do you know anything
about it?
\_ Yes, I have been to Europe, many times. You
predicted the complete and inevitable collapse
of the EU economy. Nice to see that you are
backpeddling now in the face of evidence. The
only data you presented not only didn't support
your case, it argued against it. And why is
deficit spending due to defense spending any
more likely to improve an economy than any other?
The best kind of deficit spending is probably
on infrastructure improvement and education, not
on blowing up people in Iraq.
\_ Uh, no. My chart does not argue against my
point. France is running a deficit every
year and 15 of the last 18 years it
has run deficits larger than it did in 1990
so clearly it is digging itself a hole with
current policy. I never said that defense
spending is "better" only that we are
talking about social programs. The US will
not spend itself to death because of social
programs unless Hilary does something stupid.
France, on the other hand, will do so
unless they change their system. It's a lot
easier to cut defense spending than to tell
several generations of people to expect less
because their expectations of housing and
health care were unrealistic. BTW, I
predict that EU will collapse *if they
continue doing what they are doing*. They
can always alter the course. I would never
argue against that. It's not backpeddling.
I would lump in Japan, too.
\_ As stated, the EU continues to make
more non-working people than working
people. If you can explain how that
trend can continue without leading
to inevitable collapse I'd love to
hear it. If you can explain what
will stop that trend, instead, that
would be nice too. Until you can do
so, smearing people with some silly
'usenet libertarian' label and
changing what was said into a straw
man.
\_ "European socialist" is not a
straw man, but "usenet libertarian"
straw man, but "usenet
libertarian"
is? How about this one then? You
are a crackpot.
libertarian" is? How about
this one then? You are a crackpot.
\_ They proudly call themselves
that. It is not an insult to
call them socialists. Now then
anytime you'd like to answer my
trendline questions, feel free.
\_ Did you say "anywhere in Europe" or not? And those
are just the ones I knew of off the top of my head,
I am sure there are others. But yes, the big
countries in Europe all have high unemployment,
with the exception of the UK, if that is Europe.
And you obviously don't know about the "Irish
miracle." It is one of the fastest growing
economies in Europe.
\_ Based on freakishly low, nearly illegal levels of
business taxes designed to drain their neighbor's
economies. Miracle indeed.
\_ Can you explain for us not economically
enabled how you can drain your neighbor's
economies by doing something in your own
country?
\_ "illegal levels"? lol
\_ If you have free trade and work agreements
with other countries those may very well
have rules to stop just this kind of
abuse. Treaties with other nations
work like laws, the penalties for breaking
them are just different than if you get
caught going 150 mph with 5 kilos of
blow and trunkload of dead hookers.
\_ Low business taxes are not an abuse. Why
must there be any business taxes? A
business is not a person. It's redundant
with other forms of taxes. It's the
argument of idiots that we should "tax
the rich greedy corporations" as if they
are magical beings independent of their
employees, customers, and shareholders.
\_ Because then everyone who can afford
to incorperates, and has a magic
bussiness that buys them what they
need and it is a huge loophole. But
mostly because taxes are not a one
time thing. The same money gets
taxed over and over again, goes
into the government who spends it
and guess what, gets taxed AGAIN.
It's not a simple system and any
attempt to claim that taxes should
only happen at one place because
anything else is double taxation or
whatever bullshit is the ravings
of a moronic libritarian utopian.
\_ No, it is the ravings of a perfectly
intellegent and self-serving wealthy
person who is trying to shift their
tax burden to someone else.
\_ "intellegent"? stupid fuck.
\_ spelling flames: the last
refuge of he who has lost
his argument
\_ I saw no argument, merely
an idiotic assertion.
\_ Incorporating isn't that expensive.
You file some paperwork, it costs a
few bucks well within reach of anyone
with income to be taxed.
\_ A magic business buying everything
someone needs is illegal. You can't
write off everything unless you
are committing fraud. I didn't
say tax should happen at one place
because of double taxation. I just
say that business taxes result are
say that business taxes are
ultimately paid by people. And
your argument is fucking stupid:
"mostly because taxes are not a
one time thing". Uh, stupid?
one time thing". That's not even
an argument. "You need business
taxes because taxes are not a
one time thing." ???
Libertarianism is a worthy goal
where it works. We should avoid
something because it is "libertarian"?
Yes control is good for its own
sake. Totalitarian fuckwad.
\_ Libertarianism is a great
thing in your magic utopian
world where it works worth a
damn. Then again so is
communism. And benevolent
fascism. Sadly, we don't live
in any of those worlds.
\_ Only in your pessimistic
communist world is Liberty itself
and impossible ideal.
\_ And you want to flame others
for their spelling? Oy vey.
\_ Yeah, those lazy Irish can't do crap. Eatin'
potatoes and drinking beer all the time.
\_ Not so much on the potatoes anymore but
otherwise just about right, yeah. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.bls.gov/lau -> www.bls.gov/lau/ DOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Photos representing the workforce - Digital Imagery copyright 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc. In DOL The Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program produces monthly and annual employment, unemployment, and labor force data for Census regions and divisions, States, counties, metropolitan areas, and many cities, by place of residence. Create Customized Maps--Create a map showing unemployment rates or changes in rates by State, metropolitan area, or county. Note that the newly designated Lake Havasu City-Kingman, Arizona, and Palm Coast, Florida, metropolitan areas are not yet displayed in the metropolitan area maps for those States. Also note that the titles for metropolitan areas displayed in the maps and in the data tables below the maps do not yet reflect the changes issued by the Office of Management and Budget on December 18, 2006. Create Customized Tables (one screen)--This application requires a Java-enabled browser. Choose the data you want from BLS databases on a simple, one-screen form. Create Customized Tables (multiple screens)--A form-based query application which allows you to obtain BLS time series data based on choices you make. Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment--subnational demographic labor force data from the Current Population Survey. This includes data for Census Regions and Divisions, States including the District of Columbia, 50 large Metropolitan Areas, and 17 large Cities. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey--national data on employment, unemployment, earnings, and other labor market topics by demographic characteristics. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)--monthly national data by detailed industry on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on the payrolls of nonfarm establishments. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (State and Metro Area)--monthly data on employment, hours, and earnings by industry and geographic area. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages--comprehensive employment and wage data by industry and geographic area for workers covered by State Unemployment Insurance laws. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS)--monthly data on job openings, hires, and separations that serve as demand-side indicators of labor shortages at the national level. Occupational Employment Statistics--data on employment and wages for over 800 occupations and for about 400 nonfarm industries for the nation, plus occupational data for States and metropolitan areas. National Longitudinal Surveys--several surveys gathering information at multiple points in time about the labor market and life experiences of six groups of American men, women, and youth. Survey of Employer-Provided Training--provides detailed information on training by major industry division and by size of establishment from surveys conducted in 1993 and 1995. |
| tinyurl.com/3asgnu -> data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LASST06000003_38627_1189013909860.gif <head><title>JRun Servlet Error</title></head><h1>404 /PDQ/graphics/LASST06000003_38627_1189013909860.gif</h1><body> /PDQ/graphics/LASST06000003_38627_1189013909860.gif</body> |
| www.csua.org/u/jgl -> news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070907/bs_nm/usa_economy_jobs_dc_3;_ylt=AhFt.b2f9vy7uQy4TrvaZ0oE1vAI Reuters August jobs cut by 4,000 Fri Sep 7, 10:15 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers cut 4,000 jobs in August, the first time in four years that monthly hiring contracted, the government said on Friday in a report certain to boost pressure on Federal Reserve policy makers to cut interest rates. Click Here The surprisingly bleak August jobs report was sharply contrary to expectations that hiring would keep rising and comes even before the worst of the credit-market turmoil has begun to have an impact on the economy. Many financial services firms hit by subprime mortgage problems already have begun to announce layoffs. The last time the economy shed jobs was in August 2003, when 42,000 jobs were cut. In addition to the August job losses, the Labor Department revised down its estimates for hiring in June and July by a total of 81,000. It said 68,000 jobs were added in July rather than 92,000 and 69,000 in June instead of 126,000. Despite the job losses in August, the unemployment rate that is compiled from a separate survey was unchanged from July at 46 percent . It has held in a range from 44 percent to 46 percent since last September. Economists polled a week ago by Reuters had forecast 110,000 jobs would be created in August, but many analysts had scaled back their expectations since then amid increasing signs the job market was coming under strain. There is still considerable uncertainty how the turmoil in credit markets that set in at mid-August will affect the overall economy, though Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged on Thursday night in a television interview that he expected that growth would pay a "penalty" because of the financial market disruptions. Job losses in August were concentrated in the goods-producing sector. A whopping 46,000 manufacturing jobs were cut, the most since an 86,000-job cut in July 2003. Construction businesses shed another 22,000 jobs, up from 14,000 that were lost in July. A worker carries stone crab claws at a factory in Marathon in the Florida Keys, October 19, 2006. Employers cut 4,000 jobs in August, the first time in four years that monthly hiring contracted, the government said on Friday in a report certain to boost pressure on Federal Reserve policy makers to cut interest rates. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. |
| www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html?ref=business When productivity was measured by the hour rather than by the total number of hours worked, however, Norway, an oil nation, was the most productive, followed by the United States and France, the organization said in a report released over the weekend and published every two years. "The difference in rankings can be explained by the fact that annual working hours per person employed are considerably higher in the United States than in the majority of European economies," the report said. Ireland was in second place when productivity was measured in total hours worked, moving up from fourth position in 2005. The country was fifth in terms of productivity per hour, up from sixth two years earlier. Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for a reduction in the workweek to an average of 35 hours, was a notch or two lower in the organization's rankings, whether measured in output over total hours worked or by hour. The same was true with Belgium, another country high in productivity. Among wealthy industrial nations, the figures showed that long-term productivity gains were often more marked in Western Europe and Japan than in the United States. The average annual rate of American productivity growth was 17 percent from 1980 to 2005, whether measured in total hours worked or by hour. By comparison, the annual rise in British output for each worker over the same period was 21 percent based on total hours each year, and 24 percent if measured by hour. French productivity rose 15 percent a year based on total hours worked and 22 percent when calculated in terms of hourly output. For Germany, the rises were 14 percent and 18 percent respectively, for Italy 11 percent and 14 percent, and for Japan 18 percent and 25 percent. United Nations specialized agency originally created after World War I to promote employment standards. Although the data is sketchy in places, it basically pointed to a near-doubling of productivity in East Asia over the last decade, the group said. Output per worker rose to one-fifth of the level of industrial nations in 2006 from one-eighth of that level in 1996, it said. In 2006, the productivity rise was 33 percent at the global level, 21 percent for the industrialized world and 85 percent in East Asia. Other parts of Asia showed strong, if less spectacular, growth, and the organization noted an improvement in living conditions in Asia generally. "The Asian regions saw a substantial reduction in the number of working women and men living on less than $1 a day," it said, adding that the number of working poor in Asia fell by nearly 50 percent, or 148 million, from 1996 to 2006. In contrast, weak economic performance in much of sub-Saharan Africa resulted in an increase of 24 million in the number of working poor, those earning less than $1 a day, the report said. The report noted that world unemployment edged downward again in 2006, to 63 percent from 64 percent, and that farming was no longer the dominant source of global employment, even if it was still the main one in the least developed countries. Tips To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry. |
| www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html When productivity was measured by the hour rather than by the total number of hours worked, however, Norway, an oil nation, was the most productive, followed by the United States and France, the organization said in a report released over the weekend and published every two years. "The difference in rankings can be explained by the fact that annual working hours per person employed are considerably higher in the United States than in the majority of European economies," the report said. Ireland was in second place when productivity was measured in total hours worked, moving up from fourth position in 2005. The country was fifth in terms of productivity per hour, up from sixth two years earlier. Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for a reduction in the workweek to an average of 35 hours, was a notch or two lower in the organization's rankings, whether measured in output over total hours worked or by hour. The same was true with Belgium, another country high in productivity. Among wealthy industrial nations, the figures showed that long-term productivity gains were often more marked in Western Europe and Japan than in the United States. The average annual rate of American productivity growth was 17 percent from 1980 to 2005, whether measured in total hours worked or by hour. By comparison, the annual rise in British output for each worker over the same period was 21 percent based on total hours each year, and 24 percent if measured by hour. French productivity rose 15 percent a year based on total hours worked and 22 percent when calculated in terms of hourly output. For Germany, the rises were 14 percent and 18 percent respectively, for Italy 11 percent and 14 percent, and for Japan 18 percent and 25 percent. United Nations specialized agency originally created after World War I to promote employment standards. Although the data is sketchy in places, it basically pointed to a near-doubling of productivity in East Asia over the last decade, the group said. Output per worker rose to one-fifth of the level of industrial nations in 2006 from one-eighth of that level in 1996, it said. In 2006, the productivity rise was 33 percent at the global level, 21 percent for the industrialized world and 85 percent in East Asia. Other parts of Asia showed strong, if less spectacular, growth, and the organization noted an improvement in living conditions in Asia generally. "The Asian regions saw a substantial reduction in the number of working women and men living on less than $1 a day," it said, adding that the number of working poor in Asia fell by nearly 50 percent, or 148 million, from 1996 to 2006. In contrast, weak economic performance in much of sub-Saharan Africa resulted in an increase of 24 million in the number of working poor, those earning less than $1 a day, the report said. The report noted that world unemployment edged downward again in 2006, to 63 percent from 64 percent, and that farming was no longer the dominant source of global employment, even if it was still the main one in the least developed countries. Tips To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry. |
| tinyurl.com/23d4ny -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Public_Deficit_of_France.png Attribution 25 License In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author or licensor. File history Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. |
| pets.com -> www.petsmart.com/ps/main.jsp Advanced Search email sign up catalog quick shop gift card quick re-order store locator customer service Authority Senior Real Chicken orig. Authority Puppy Real Chicken orig. Authority Adult Real Chicken orig. Authority Lite Real Chicken orig. PETsMART Store Support Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this Website constitutes acceptance of the PETsMART Terms of Use and Legal Notices and Privacy. |