 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
dcbl
Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:26 am |
|
| http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07econ.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
|
Joe Steel
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:08 pm |
|
Most economists predict that the rate will in fact begin to fall next year, largely because of the federal government’s aggressive response — fiscal stimulus, interest-rate cuts and a variety of creative steps by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department. Friday’s report showed that monthly job losses continued to slow recently, though the improvement has been gradual.
There it is; what we've (the enlightened) have been saying all along. It's going to take time to clean-up the mess Conservatives have created. Next year, though, employment will be rising and Progressives will be able to take the credit...all the credit because not a single Republican voted for the Stimulus.
|
George Aligator
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:20 pm |
|
| I find it very interesting that after years and years of ignoring the optimistic bias in our calculation of unemployment, we are suddenly including a more comprehensive statistic which allows meaningful comparison with our peer nations. I suspect the Obama administration is behind this as once fairly compared, the American system starts to look very shabby indeed beside Canada, Australia or the EU. Except, of course, in Dixie, where most voters leave school before they get to percentage.
|
ATTAburnsinHELL
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:26 pm |
|
George Aligator wrote: I find it very interesting that after years and years of ignoring the optimistic bias in our calculation of unemployment, we are suddenly including a more comprehensive statistic which allows meaningful comparison with our peer nations. I suspect the Obama administration is behind this as once fairly compared, the American system starts to look very shabby indeed beside Canada, Australia or the EU. Except, of course, in Dixie, where most voters leave school before they get to percentage.
Which of course started during the Reagan years when they decided that once you were off the unemployment rolls you suddenly became a non-person
Very similar to when bush took the costs of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and shoved them into the "Top Secret' drawer so no one could see how these hyper-expensive wars were not reflected in the growing deficit
When Obama decided to include them, the conservos cried "OmiGod! Look how Obama has put us further into debt!"
|
madmex1966
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 3rd, 2004 |
| Location: | Bada Bing! |
| Posts: | 25185 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
The SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated “discouraged workers” defined away during the Clinton Administration added to the existing BLS estimates of level U-6 unemployment
http://seekingalpha.com/article/117296-true-unemployment-rate-is-not-reflected-in-government-numbers
|
Current time is 01:44 pm | |
|
|
|
|
