New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Bad Week to be a Republican

NightSwimmer

NightSwimmer

Senator
And it just keeps getting worse.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of Americans seeking unemployment aid fell last week to the lowest level in five years, evidence that employers are cutting fewer jobs and may step up hiring.

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly unemployment benefit applications dropped 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 330,000. That's the fewest since January 2008.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, fell to 351,750. That's also the lowest in nearly five years.



Keep the faith faithful Republicans. Who knows? Maybe Bill Clinton will get another blow job? ;)
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
I think it's a bad CENTURY to be a Republican. Their zenith was in the 19th century.
Click to expand...

But that was back when they were atleast liberals on civil rights...no more. Now the Party is so Far Right that Ronald Reagan couldn't get the GOP Nomination (especially on his record as Governor of CA) and guys like Chris Christie are called "liberals" for being NICE to the President of the US.
 
Judging by the PJ Spam-O-Meter this morning, it's pretty obvious that our usual suspects secretly understand just what a monumental ass-whipping the GOP took on those hearings yesterday.
 
I don't have the math ready to hand but, I think if we adjusted these unemployment numbers for population inflation and the fact that our population is tilting towards more people of retirement age, we'd find that the current unemployment figures may actually be less than the average over time.
 
fairsheet said:
I don't have the math ready to hand but, I think if we adjusted these unemployment numbers for population inflation and the fact that our population is tilting towards more people of retirement age, we'd find that the current unemployment figures may actually be less than the average over time.
Click to expand...


You might have a point there, but I would be surprised if such factors were not already being considered. I simply don't know.
 
fairsheet said:
I don't have the math ready to hand but, I think if we adjusted these unemployment numbers for population inflation and the fact that our population is tilting towards more people of retirement age, we'd find that the current unemployment figures may actually be less than the average over time.
Click to expand...

We do know that in the past five or six years, since the financial crisis began, many people have been taking early retirement, but that may be involuntary----which means it would not be considered a good thing. Just sayin'....
 
NightSwimmer said:
You might have a point there, but I would be surprised if such factors were not already being considered. I simply don't know.
Click to expand...

The unemployment numbers are gross unemployment claims numbers. Sometime back, I actually found a graph that adjusted the gross unemployment claims numbers for population, over time. I haven't been able to find that graph since, although I haven't really looked that hard.

One thing I do remember though, is that during the late 90's when unemployment was effectively at <0%, monthly unemployment claims still ran at an adjusted gross number of somewhere between 225k and 250k.
 
fairsheet said:
The unemployment numbers are gross unemployment claims numbers. Sometime back, I actually found a graph that adjusted the gross unemployment claims numbers for population, over time. I haven't been able to find that graph since, although I haven't really looked that hard.

One thing I do remember though, is that during the late 90's when unemployment was effectively at <0%, monthly unemployment claims still ran at an adjusted gross number of somewhere between 225k and 250k.
Click to expand...

How can unemployment be NEGATIVE, Fairsheet?? In the late 90's, unemployment got down to 3.9%, which was indeed very low, but not the lowest it has ever been. The lowest unemployment has ever been was ~1%, back in 1944. Most of us were pretty busy, back then....
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
How can unemployment be NEGATIVE, Fairsheet?? In the late 90's, unemployment got down to 3.9%, which was indeed very low, but not the lowest it has ever been. The lowest unemployment has ever been was ~1%, back in 1944. Most of us were pretty busy, back then....
Click to expand...


Isn't there a lower threshold number that is merely considered "noise" that would occur simply from people choosing to leave one job and seek another?
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
We do know that in the past five or six years, since the financial crisis began, many people have been taking early retirement, but that may be involuntary----which means it would not be considered a good thing. Just sayin'....
Click to expand...

No doubt. However, I think you would probably agree that our aging population plays at least some part in our evolving employment picture. I'm not qualified or prepared to suggest exactly WHAT part, but I know it's at least "some".
 
NightSwimmer said:
Isn't there a lower threshold number that is merely considered "noise" that would occur simply from people choosing to leave one job and seek another?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Although, I suppose the case could be made that our baseline number of say...250k during the late 90's, doesn't represent exactly the same population as 250k of the 350k total, represents in our current economy. I'm sure some part is the same, but maybe not all? I don't know.

On the other hand...purely anecdotally, I don't know anyone personally right now, who's unemployed or underemployed "against their will". To the extent that anecdotal evidence is useful, this is a good sign.
 
NightSwimmer said:
Isn't there a lower threshold number that is merely considered "noise" that would occur simply from people choosing to leave one job and seek another?
Click to expand...

Yes. That kind of unemployment is called 'frictional unemployment'. Other types of unemployment are 'structural' and 'cyclical'. So zero unemployment is actually not a desirable goal. The Soviet Union used to brag that they had zero unemployment. "Unemployment is a DISEASE of the capitalist system", they would say. If you didn't have a job in the Soviet Union, they would find one for you. No doubt.
 
fairsheet said:
Absolutely. Although, I suppose the case could be made that our baseline number of say...250k during the late 90's, doesn't represent exactly the same population as 250k of the 350k total, represents in our current economy. I'm sure some part is the same, but maybe not all? I don't know.

On the other hand...purely anecdotally, I don't know anyone personally right now, who's unemployed or underemployed "against their will". To the extent that anecdotal evidence is useful, this is a good sign.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that the labor market is picking up, and yes, that is an unequivocally good sign. It probably has a lot to do with the recovery in the housing sector.
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
Yes. That kind of unemployment is called 'frictional unemployment'. Other types of unemployment are 'structural' and 'cyclical'. So zero unemployment is actually not a desirable goal. The Soviet Union used to brag that they had zero unemployment. "Unemployment is a DISEASE of the capitalist system", they would say. If you didn't have a job in the Soviet Union, they would find one for you. No doubt.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. I guess that I'd consider any number less than that threshold value effectively a "negative number".
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
How can unemployment be NEGATIVE, Fairsheet?? In the late 90's, unemployment got down to 3.9%, which was indeed very low, but not the lowest it has ever been. The lowest unemployment has ever been was ~1%, back in 1944. Most of us were pretty busy, back then....
Click to expand...

Note that I said an "effective" rate of <0%. And I should qualify that this may actually be a theory of my own invention. We know that an "official" unemployment rate of 4% is roughly equal to an effective unemplyment rate of 0%. The thinking is that at an (official) 4%, most everyone who wants a job, has a job.

But...during the late-90's - and for sure, I was stuck working with a lot of these types - there were quite a few people in positions they weren't fully qualified for and earning paychecks greater than the actual value they produced. That's how I get to my "<0%", or maybe...."overemployment".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top