economics: Germany
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 8 Jul 2010 20:43 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:29:26 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:14:29 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:13:02 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:01:24 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:46:20 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:23:20 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Jul 6, 5:57�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 4:25�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>> > > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > At least FDR got something tangible, some infrastructure, >>>>>>> > > > however much it cost him. �We still use some of it today. �Barack's >>>>>>> > > > money is gone, with nothing to show for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > > - you've got 10% unemployment, not 25%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > It's 18%, actually. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > According to whose web-site? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Obama's. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > says 9.5%. This has to be the "official" figure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > I'm sure that you can find some right-wing nit wit who has counted >>>>>>> > > everybody who isn't actually working - as in sick, retired or getting >>>>>>> > > an education - as unemployed, but it is ratehr difficult to compare >>>>>>> > > their "unemployment" level with historical numbers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > The number you cite doesn't count people who've given up--we had >>>>>>> > 652,000 of those *last month*. �(That's why unemployment's "down", the >>>>>>> > "progress" the President touted last week.) �It's the for-dummies >>>>>>> > number. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Your figure counts scientists mowing lawns part-time or selling >>>>>>> > newspapers on street corners as "employed." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > So, the number of people who want full-time work but can't find it is >>>>>>> > ~18%. �Or maybe 17%--I haven't added it up recently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, you can find people in the statistics whom you think >>>>>>> ought to be counted as unemployed, and if I went to the trouble of >>>>>>> trawling through the statistics and trying to duplicate your anti- >>>>>>> Obama mind-set I might be able to recreate your 18% unemployent >>>>>>> figure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not of figure that tells us much about the current state of the >>>>>>> economy, because we can't easily go back and perform the same >>>>>>> conjuring trick on earlier statistics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > You can confirm these and more at the right-wing Obama >>>>>>> > administration's BLS website. �Your link, for starters, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > �http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > �http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, the 18% comes out of your fertile imagination, lightly >>>>>>> constrained by the official numbers. If a republican were in power, >>>>>>> your prejudices would work differently. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, actually it's an official government figure; I just explained to >>>>>>you how it's calculated. >>>>> >>>>>It's called the "U6" (unemployed looking for work + unemployed no longer >>>>>looking - "discouraged" + underemployed). The normally reported "survey" >>>>>numbers are known as the "U3". >>>>> >>>>>>Like with the money supply's M1, M2, & M3, the government publishes a >>>>>>number of stats on unemployment. You cited the "for dummies" number, >>>>>>the number the President uses when he says 652,000 people--in one >>>>>>month--giving up entirely and dropping out of the work force is a good >>>>>>thing. >>>>> >>>>>U1 through U6 are defined about half way down: >>>>>http://www.search.com/reference/Unemployment >>>>> >>>>>>So, wait a minute, if they all quit looking, everyone will be >>>>>>employed! Hooray! You've solved it! Better, job-hunting should be >>>>>>banned! It's un-American! >>>>> >>>>>makes U3 look good, but U6 won't look so great. >>>> >>>> >>>>U7: fraction of population who could work but who aren't working. >>>> >>>>U8: fraction of population that isn't working. >>>> >>>>U9: Like U8, but exclude government employees as "working." >>>> >>>> >>>>U9 is the one that really matters, of course. >>> >>>As long as it doesn't include those who don't want employment (retired, stay >>>at home mothers, etc.). >> >>What matters is the net fraction of the population that is actually >>doing productive work. Retired people, kids, students, people who >>choose not to work, stay-home mothers, government types... all consume >>food, housing, health care, and other stuff and don't produce any. > >Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Retirees have investments which certainly do produce. >Stay at home moms produce the next producers. Only those people producing stuff, well, produce stuff. "Investments" don't produce anything, especially when the money is "invested" in government obligations or the casino called the stock market. Mothers at home feed themselves and their kids. That's admirable, but food and electricity enter the house every day, and it's got to come from somewhere. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Jul 2010 20:46 On Jul 8, 6:01 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:46:20 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > > > > <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:23:20 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >>On Jul 6, 5:57 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>> On Jul 6, 4:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> > On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>> > > On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>> > > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>> > > > At least FDR got something tangible, some infrastructure, > >>> > > > however much it cost him. We still use some of it today. Barack's > >>> > > > money is gone, with nothing to show for it. > > >>> > > > > - you've got 10% unemployment, not 25%. > > >>> > > > It's 18%, actually. > > >>> > > According to whose web-site? > > >>> > Obama's. > > >>> > >http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.htm > > >>> > > says 9.5%. This has to be the "official" figure. > > >>> > > I'm sure that you can find some right-wing nit wit who has counted > >>> > > everybody who isn't actually working - as in sick, retired or getting > >>> > > an education - as unemployed, but it is ratehr difficult to compare > >>> > > their "unemployment" level with historical numbers. > > >>> > The number you cite doesn't count people who've given up--we had > >>> > 652,000 of those *last month*. (That's why unemployment's "down", the > >>> > "progress" the President touted last week.) It's the for-dummies > >>> > number. > > >>> > Your figure counts scientists mowing lawns part-time or selling > >>> > newspapers on street corners as "employed." > > >>> > So, the number of people who want full-time work but can't find it is > >>> > ~18%. Or maybe 17%--I haven't added it up recently. > > >>> In other words, you can find people in the statistics whom you think > >>> ought to be counted as unemployed, and if I went to the trouble of > >>> trawling through the statistics and trying to duplicate your anti- > >>> Obama mind-set I might be able to recreate your 18% unemployent > >>> figure. > > >>> Not of figure that tells us much about the current state of the > >>> economy, because we can't easily go back and perform the same > >>> conjuring trick on earlier statistics > > >>> > You can confirm these and more at the right-wing Obama > >>> > administration's BLS website. Your link, for starters, and > > >>> > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm > > >>> > and > > >>> > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm > > >>> In other words, the 18% comes out of your fertile imagination, lightly > >>> constrained by the official numbers. If a republican were in power, > >>> your prejudices would work differently. > > >>No, actually it's an official government figure; I just explained to > >>you how it's calculated. > > >It's called the "U6" (unemployed looking for work + unemployed no longer > >looking - "discouraged" + underemployed). The normally reported "survey" > >numbers are known as the "U3". > > >>Like with the money supply's M1, M2, & M3, the government publishes a > >>number of stats on unemployment. You cited the "for dummies" number, > >>the number the President uses when he says 652,000 people--in one > >>month--giving up entirely and dropping out of the work force is a good > >>thing. > > >U1 through U6 are defined about half way down: > >http://www.search.com/reference/Unemployment > > >>So, wait a minute, if they all quit looking, everyone will be > >>employed! Hooray! You've solved it! Better, job-hunting should be > >>banned! It's un-American! > > >makes U3 look good, but U6 won't look so great. > > U7: fraction of population who could work but who aren't working. > > U8: fraction of population that isn't working. > > U9: Like U8, but exclude government employees as "working." > > U9 is the one that really matters, of course. > > John From the BLS link I gave Bill earlier (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm): "In June, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm pay-rolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 34.1 hours. The manufacturing workweek for all employees decreased by 0.5 hour to 40.0 hours; this followed an increase of 0.4 hour in May. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.4 hours in June. (See tables B-2 and B-7.) Average hourly earnings of all employees in the private nonfarm sector decreased by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $22.53 in June." That's what traders call seriously "bearish." -- Cheers, James Arthur "So how's that hope and change workin' for ya?" --Sarah Palin
From: John Larkin on 8 Jul 2010 21:00 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 17:46:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jul 8, 6:01�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:46:20 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> >> >> >> <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:23:20 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >>On Jul 6, 5:57�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 6, 4:25�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >>> > On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >>> > > On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> > > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >>> > > > At least FDR got something tangible, some infrastructure, >> >>> > > > however much it cost him. �We still use some of it today. �Barack's >> >>> > > > money is gone, with nothing to show for it. >> >> >>> > > > > - you've got 10% unemployment, not 25%. >> >> >>> > > > It's 18%, actually. >> >> >>> > > According to whose web-site? >> >> >>> > Obama's. >> >> >>> > >http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.htm >> >> >>> > > says 9.5%. This has to be the "official" figure. >> >> >>> > > I'm sure that you can find some right-wing nit wit who has counted >> >>> > > everybody who isn't actually working - as in sick, retired or getting >> >>> > > an education - as unemployed, but it is ratehr difficult to compare >> >>> > > their "unemployment" level with historical numbers. >> >> >>> > The number you cite doesn't count people who've given up--we had >> >>> > 652,000 of those *last month*. �(That's why unemployment's "down", the >> >>> > "progress" the President touted last week.) �It's the for-dummies >> >>> > number. >> >> >>> > Your figure counts scientists mowing lawns part-time or selling >> >>> > newspapers on street corners as "employed." >> >> >>> > So, the number of people who want full-time work but can't find it is >> >>> > ~18%. �Or maybe 17%--I haven't added it up recently. >> >> >>> In other words, you can find people in the statistics whom you think >> >>> ought to be counted as unemployed, and if I went to the trouble of >> >>> trawling through the statistics and trying to duplicate your anti- >> >>> Obama mind-set I might be able to recreate your 18% unemployent >> >>> figure. >> >> >>> Not of figure that tells us much about the current state of the >> >>> economy, because we can't easily go back and perform the same >> >>> conjuring trick on earlier statistics >> >> >>> > You can confirm these and more at the right-wing Obama >> >>> > administration's BLS website. �Your link, for starters, and >> >> >>> > �http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm >> >> >>> > and >> >> >>> > �http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm >> >> >>> In other words, the 18% comes out of your fertile imagination, lightly >> >>> constrained by the official numbers. If a republican were in power, >> >>> your prejudices would work differently. >> >> >>No, actually it's an official government figure; I just explained to >> >>you how it's calculated. >> >> >It's called the "U6" (unemployed looking for work + unemployed no longer >> >looking - "discouraged" + underemployed). �The normally reported "survey" >> >numbers are known as the "U3". � >> >> >>Like with the money supply's M1, M2, & M3, the government publishes a >> >>number of stats on unemployment. �You cited the "for dummies" number, >> >>the number the President uses when he says 652,000 people--in one >> >>month--giving up entirely and dropping out of the work force is a good >> >>thing. >> >> >U1 through U6 are defined about half way down: >> >http://www.search.com/reference/Unemployment >> >> >>So, wait a minute, if they all quit looking, everyone will be >> >>employed! �Hooray! �You've solved it! �Better, job-hunting should be >> >>banned! �It's un-American! >> >> >makes U3 look good, but U6 won't look so great. >> >> U7: fraction of population who could work but who aren't working. >> >> U8: fraction of population that isn't working. >> >> U9: Like U8, but exclude government employees as "working." >> >> U9 is the one that really matters, of course. >> >> John > > >From the BLS link I gave Bill earlier >(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm): > >"In June, the average workweek for all employees on private > nonfarm pay-rolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 34.1 hours. The > manufacturing workweek for all employees decreased by 0.5 > hour to 40.0 hours; this followed an increase of 0.4 hour > in May. The average workweek for production and > nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls > was unchanged at 33.4 hours in June. (See tables B-2 > and B-7.) > > Average hourly earnings of all employees in the private > nonfarm sector decreased by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to > $22.53 in June." > >That's what traders call seriously "bearish." I wonder what is the average hours worked per week across the entire US population. John
From: krw on 8 Jul 2010 23:01 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:43:06 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:29:26 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:14:29 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:13:02 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:01:24 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:46:20 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:23:20 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Jul 6, 5:57�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 4:25�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>> > > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > > At least FDR got something tangible, some infrastructure, >>>>>>>> > > > however much it cost him. �We still use some of it today. �Barack's >>>>>>>> > > > money is gone, with nothing to show for it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > > > - you've got 10% unemployment, not 25%. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > > It's 18%, actually. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > According to whose web-site? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Obama's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > says 9.5%. This has to be the "official" figure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > I'm sure that you can find some right-wing nit wit who has counted >>>>>>>> > > everybody who isn't actually working - as in sick, retired or getting >>>>>>>> > > an education - as unemployed, but it is ratehr difficult to compare >>>>>>>> > > their "unemployment" level with historical numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > The number you cite doesn't count people who've given up--we had >>>>>>>> > 652,000 of those *last month*. �(That's why unemployment's "down", the >>>>>>>> > "progress" the President touted last week.) �It's the for-dummies >>>>>>>> > number. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Your figure counts scientists mowing lawns part-time or selling >>>>>>>> > newspapers on street corners as "employed." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > So, the number of people who want full-time work but can't find it is >>>>>>>> > ~18%. �Or maybe 17%--I haven't added it up recently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, you can find people in the statistics whom you think >>>>>>>> ought to be counted as unemployed, and if I went to the trouble of >>>>>>>> trawling through the statistics and trying to duplicate your anti- >>>>>>>> Obama mind-set I might be able to recreate your 18% unemployent >>>>>>>> figure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not of figure that tells us much about the current state of the >>>>>>>> economy, because we can't easily go back and perform the same >>>>>>>> conjuring trick on earlier statistics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > You can confirm these and more at the right-wing Obama >>>>>>>> > administration's BLS website. �Your link, for starters, and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > �http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > �http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, the 18% comes out of your fertile imagination, lightly >>>>>>>> constrained by the official numbers. If a republican were in power, >>>>>>>> your prejudices would work differently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, actually it's an official government figure; I just explained to >>>>>>>you how it's calculated. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's called the "U6" (unemployed looking for work + unemployed no longer >>>>>>looking - "discouraged" + underemployed). The normally reported "survey" >>>>>>numbers are known as the "U3". >>>>>> >>>>>>>Like with the money supply's M1, M2, & M3, the government publishes a >>>>>>>number of stats on unemployment. You cited the "for dummies" number, >>>>>>>the number the President uses when he says 652,000 people--in one >>>>>>>month--giving up entirely and dropping out of the work force is a good >>>>>>>thing. >>>>>> >>>>>>U1 through U6 are defined about half way down: >>>>>>http://www.search.com/reference/Unemployment >>>>>> >>>>>>>So, wait a minute, if they all quit looking, everyone will be >>>>>>>employed! Hooray! You've solved it! Better, job-hunting should be >>>>>>>banned! It's un-American! >>>>>> >>>>>>makes U3 look good, but U6 won't look so great. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>U7: fraction of population who could work but who aren't working. >>>>> >>>>>U8: fraction of population that isn't working. >>>>> >>>>>U9: Like U8, but exclude government employees as "working." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>U9 is the one that really matters, of course. >>>> >>>>As long as it doesn't include those who don't want employment (retired, stay >>>>at home mothers, etc.). >>> >>>What matters is the net fraction of the population that is actually >>>doing productive work. Retired people, kids, students, people who >>>choose not to work, stay-home mothers, government types... all consume >>>food, housing, health care, and other stuff and don't produce any. >> >>Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Retirees have investments which certainly do produce. >>Stay at home moms produce the next producers. > >Only those people producing stuff, well, produce stuff. "Investments" >don't produce anything, especially when the money is "invested" in >government obligations or the casino called the stock market. Oh, bullshit. Investments are where the money comes from to build things. Were it not for the stock market these investments wouldn't be negotiable, so people would not invest in making things. >Mothers >at home feed themselves and their kids. That's admirable, but food and >electricity enter the house every day, and it's got to come from >somewhere. It enters your building every day, too. You don't make it. Grow up!
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Jul 2010 23:50
On Jul 8, 8:00 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 17:46:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > >From the BLS link I gave Bill earlier > >(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm): > > >"In June, the average workweek for all employees on private > > nonfarm pay-rolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 34.1 hours. The > > manufacturing workweek for all employees decreased by 0.5 > > hour to 40.0 hours; this followed an increase of 0.4 hour > > in May. The average workweek for production and > > nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls > > was unchanged at 33.4 hours in June. (See tables B-2 > > and B-7.) > > > Average hourly earnings of all employees in the private > > nonfarm sector decreased by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to > > $22.53 in June." > > >That's what traders call seriously "bearish." > > I wonder what is the average hours worked per week across the entire > US population. > > John ISTR it's usually 44 hours or so (USA, less in Europe). 33.4 hours and falling means there isn't much out there, and that employers won't be needing more people. IOW no jobs--current employees are already underutilized. -- Cheers, James Arthur |