PDA

View Full Version : Interesting spin


Albert Wagner
July 3rd 03, 10:06 AM
On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.

Victor Smith
July 3rd 03, 08:06 PM
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 03:06:32 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
>unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
>was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
>workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.

It's not spin. The right-wing ideologues currently running the gov
actually believe that all unemployed people enjoy being on the dole,
and aren't about to look for a job until their unemployment benefits
run out. I've heard this same bull**** from other Repugnants.
They really believe it.
There is no nice way to describe these people. They shame us all
in their ignorance, greed, and lack of vision; we put them there.
As we are reminded about the founding fathers this Independence Day,
and consider their intelligence, compassion, insight and foresight, it
is utterly depressing/disgusting to entertain any thoughts whatsoever
about this country's current leadership.

--Vic

Victor Smith
July 3rd 03, 08:06 PM
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 03:06:32 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
>unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
>was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
>workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.

It's not spin. The right-wing ideologues currently running the gov
actually believe that all unemployed people enjoy being on the dole,
and aren't about to look for a job until their unemployment benefits
run out. I've heard this same bull**** from other Repugnants.
They really believe it.
There is no nice way to describe these people. They shame us all
in their ignorance, greed, and lack of vision; we put them there.
As we are reminded about the founding fathers this Independence Day,
and consider their intelligence, compassion, insight and foresight, it
is utterly depressing/disgusting to entertain any thoughts whatsoever
about this country's current leadership.

--Vic

Tomcat14
July 3rd 03, 08:41 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
> unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
> was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
> workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.

Sounds like spin doesn't it? I did hear something about the
"confidence" index being up a little. If more dropouts decide to look
for work I guess that is supposed to reflect the positive attitude.
More jobs created would reflect positive results. If the economy
doesn't pick up, Bush is toast.

Tomcat14
July 3rd 03, 08:41 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
> unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
> was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
> workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.

Sounds like spin doesn't it? I did hear something about the
"confidence" index being up a little. If more dropouts decide to look
for work I guess that is supposed to reflect the positive attitude.
More jobs created would reflect positive results. If the economy
doesn't pick up, Bush is toast.

July 4th 03, 03:42 AM
In article >,
Pat Meadows > wrote:

> The unemployment rate, which stood at 6.1 percent in May, jumped to
> 6.4 percent in June. The jobless rate has not been this high since
> April 1994.

Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?

July 4th 03, 03:42 AM
In article >,
Pat Meadows > wrote:

> The unemployment rate, which stood at 6.1 percent in May, jumped to
> 6.4 percent in June. The jobless rate has not been this high since
> April 1994.

Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?

Andrey Platanov
July 4th 03, 02:36 PM
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:42:40 -0700, wrote:

>Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
>least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?

Perhaps you're referring to what economists call the "natural rate of
unemployment"? That number is supposed to capture the idea that in a
free labor economy, there will always be some level of unemployment as
people move about the country seeking to change jobs, careers,
locations, etc.

I seem to recall that this natural unemployment rate is somewhere
around 3% or 4%. It's more of a concept than a hard number though
because it'd be difficult to find statistics to quatify the rate.

BTW, I'm one of those folks who have recently started looking for work
again and have rejoined the ranks of the unemployed.

Andrey Platanov
July 4th 03, 02:36 PM
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:42:40 -0700, wrote:

>Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
>least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?

Perhaps you're referring to what economists call the "natural rate of
unemployment"? That number is supposed to capture the idea that in a
free labor economy, there will always be some level of unemployment as
people move about the country seeking to change jobs, careers,
locations, etc.

I seem to recall that this natural unemployment rate is somewhere
around 3% or 4%. It's more of a concept than a hard number though
because it'd be difficult to find statistics to quatify the rate.

BTW, I'm one of those folks who have recently started looking for work
again and have rejoined the ranks of the unemployed.

lpogoda
July 4th 03, 05:58 PM
Andrey Platanov wrote in message
>...
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:42:40 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
>>least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?
>
>Perhaps you're referring to what economists call the "natural rate of
>unemployment"? That number is supposed to capture the idea that in a
>free labor economy, there will always be some level of unemployment as
>people move about the country seeking to change jobs, careers,
>locations, etc.
>
>I seem to recall that this natural unemployment rate is somewhere
>around 3% or 4%. It's more of a concept than a hard number though
>because it'd be difficult to find statistics to quatify the rate.
>
In the 90's, it was considered 4% or less. In the 70's, 6% or so was
considered the norm.

lpogoda
July 4th 03, 05:58 PM
Andrey Platanov wrote in message
>...
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:42:40 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
>>least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?
>
>Perhaps you're referring to what economists call the "natural rate of
>unemployment"? That number is supposed to capture the idea that in a
>free labor economy, there will always be some level of unemployment as
>people move about the country seeking to change jobs, careers,
>locations, etc.
>
>I seem to recall that this natural unemployment rate is somewhere
>around 3% or 4%. It's more of a concept than a hard number though
>because it'd be difficult to find statistics to quatify the rate.
>
In the 90's, it was considered 4% or less. In the 70's, 6% or so was
considered the norm.

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 08:31 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
> unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
> was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
> workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.

Ya...SPIN is correct. I heard this a couple of times on the news, and
ppl started buzzing about it immediately.

First of all... HOW would they know hundreds of thousands of ppl were
now back to looking for work? How would they collect that data?
Obviously, the only way is if they all got back on unemployment! due
to extensions after they couldn't find work.

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 08:31 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
> unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
> was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
> workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.

Ya...SPIN is correct. I heard this a couple of times on the news, and
ppl started buzzing about it immediately.

First of all... HOW would they know hundreds of thousands of ppl were
now back to looking for work? How would they collect that data?
Obviously, the only way is if they all got back on unemployment! due
to extensions after they couldn't find work.

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 10:23 PM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,

> I hope it doesn't last long.

Hello? Sorry, but u are one of the people who MOST gets what's going
on in the US economically. U layed it all rite out, exactly as it is:

> Here in the SF Bay Area, it's happening
> all around me, but in spurts--long periods of quiet followed by
> flurries of pink slips.

Ya.... u got it. That's what happens when jobs just stop existing.


Many of my customers are hanging on by the skin
> of their teeth. Each one who drops off the employment tree is a huge
> revenue loss for me, a renter of very moderate means. And for all the
> talk of deflation, thus far there is very little compensatory activity
> on the expenditure side (rents stable but not decreasing, food costs
> still rising, state regulatory costs rising, etc., etc.).

Deflation is NOT the opposite of Inflation. They're both occuring at
the same time. WHY wouldn't they?


> My work requires a lot of local travel, and I have noticed a real
> increase in the number of kids just hanging out. I suppose it is because
> there's no school and all the jobs are taken by people who have families
> to feed. But it's worrisome.

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 10:23 PM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,

> I hope it doesn't last long.

Hello? Sorry, but u are one of the people who MOST gets what's going
on in the US economically. U layed it all rite out, exactly as it is:

> Here in the SF Bay Area, it's happening
> all around me, but in spurts--long periods of quiet followed by
> flurries of pink slips.

Ya.... u got it. That's what happens when jobs just stop existing.


Many of my customers are hanging on by the skin
> of their teeth. Each one who drops off the employment tree is a huge
> revenue loss for me, a renter of very moderate means. And for all the
> talk of deflation, thus far there is very little compensatory activity
> on the expenditure side (rents stable but not decreasing, food costs
> still rising, state regulatory costs rising, etc., etc.).

Deflation is NOT the opposite of Inflation. They're both occuring at
the same time. WHY wouldn't they?


> My work requires a lot of local travel, and I have noticed a real
> increase in the number of kids just hanging out. I suppose it is because
> there's no school and all the jobs are taken by people who have families
> to feed. But it's worrisome.

lpogoda
July 4th 03, 10:32 PM
Edgar S. wrote in message
>...
>Albert Wagner > wrote in message
>...
>> On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
>> unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
>> was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
>> workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.
>
>Ya...SPIN is correct. I heard this a couple of times on the news, and
>ppl started buzzing about it immediately.
>
>First of all... HOW would they know hundreds of thousands of ppl were
>now back to looking for work? How would they collect that data?
>Obviously, the only way is if they all got back on unemployment! due
>to extensions after they couldn't find work.

They do two surveys - one of households, one of businesses.

lpogoda
July 4th 03, 10:32 PM
Edgar S. wrote in message
>...
>Albert Wagner > wrote in message
>...
>> On CNBC this morning, after 30,000 new jobs lost in June and the
>> unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%, Elaine Chau, Labor Secretary, said it
>> was GOOD news because it reflected several hundred thousand unemployed
>> workers who had dropped off were looking for jobs again.
>
>Ya...SPIN is correct. I heard this a couple of times on the news, and
>ppl started buzzing about it immediately.
>
>First of all... HOW would they know hundreds of thousands of ppl were
>now back to looking for work? How would they collect that data?
>Obviously, the only way is if they all got back on unemployment! due
>to extensions after they couldn't find work.

They do two surveys - one of households, one of businesses.

Bob Ward
July 4th 03, 10:42 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 13:23:34 -0700, (Edgar S.) wrote:

wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>
>> I hope it doesn't last long.
>
>Hello? Sorry, but u are one of the people who MOST gets what's going
>on in the US economically. U layed it all rite out, exactly as it is:
>
>> Here in the SF Bay Area, it's happening
>> all around me, but in spurts--long periods of quiet followed by
>> flurries of pink slips.
>
>Ya.... u got it. That's what happens when jobs just stop existing.
>
>
> Many of my customers are hanging on by the skin
>> of their teeth. Each one who drops off the employment tree is a huge
>> revenue loss for me, a renter of very moderate means. And for all the
>> talk of deflation, thus far there is very little compensatory activity
>> on the expenditure side (rents stable but not decreasing, food costs
>> still rising, state regulatory costs rising, etc., etc.).
>
>Deflation is NOT the opposite of Inflation. They're both occuring at
>the same time. WHY wouldn't they?
>
>
>> My work requires a lot of local travel, and I have noticed a real
>> increase in the number of kids just hanging out. I suppose it is because
>> there's no school and all the jobs are taken by people who have families
>> to feed. But it's worrisome.

Dont U no how stupid U sound when U post stuff with misspeld wurds, on
subjects U don't know Jack **** about?

Of course U dont - U R Elaine Galegos-Gallant - Stupid bitch.

Bob Ward
July 4th 03, 10:42 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 13:23:34 -0700, (Edgar S.) wrote:

wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>
>> I hope it doesn't last long.
>
>Hello? Sorry, but u are one of the people who MOST gets what's going
>on in the US economically. U layed it all rite out, exactly as it is:
>
>> Here in the SF Bay Area, it's happening
>> all around me, but in spurts--long periods of quiet followed by
>> flurries of pink slips.
>
>Ya.... u got it. That's what happens when jobs just stop existing.
>
>
> Many of my customers are hanging on by the skin
>> of their teeth. Each one who drops off the employment tree is a huge
>> revenue loss for me, a renter of very moderate means. And for all the
>> talk of deflation, thus far there is very little compensatory activity
>> on the expenditure side (rents stable but not decreasing, food costs
>> still rising, state regulatory costs rising, etc., etc.).
>
>Deflation is NOT the opposite of Inflation. They're both occuring at
>the same time. WHY wouldn't they?
>
>
>> My work requires a lot of local travel, and I have noticed a real
>> increase in the number of kids just hanging out. I suppose it is because
>> there's no school and all the jobs are taken by people who have families
>> to feed. But it's worrisome.

Dont U no how stupid U sound when U post stuff with misspeld wurds, on
subjects U don't know Jack **** about?

Of course U dont - U R Elaine Galegos-Gallant - Stupid bitch.

Edgar S.
July 5th 03, 03:11 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message >...
> Andrey Platanov wrote in message
> >...
> >On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:42:40 -0700, wrote:
> >
> >>Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
> >>least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?
> >
> >Perhaps you're referring to what economists call the "natural rate of
> >unemployment"? That number is supposed to capture the idea that in a
> >free labor economy, there will always be some level of unemployment as
> >people move about the country seeking to change jobs, careers,
> >locations, etc.
> >
> >I seem to recall that this natural unemployment rate is somewhere
> >around 3% or 4%. It's more of a concept than a hard number though
> >because it'd be difficult to find statistics to quatify the rate.
> >
> In the 90's, it was considered 4% or less. In the 70's, 6% or so was
> considered the norm.

The don't actually know how many are unemployed. If Gov. KNEW, they
wouldn't tell us.

Edgar S.
July 5th 03, 03:11 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message >...
> Andrey Platanov wrote in message
> >...
> >On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:42:40 -0700, wrote:
> >
> >>Am I mistaken, or wasn't 6% unemployment considered beneficial (or at
> >>least, business as usual) before the dotcom gold rush?
> >
> >Perhaps you're referring to what economists call the "natural rate of
> >unemployment"? That number is supposed to capture the idea that in a
> >free labor economy, there will always be some level of unemployment as
> >people move about the country seeking to change jobs, careers,
> >locations, etc.
> >
> >I seem to recall that this natural unemployment rate is somewhere
> >around 3% or 4%. It's more of a concept than a hard number though
> >because it'd be difficult to find statistics to quatify the rate.
> >
> In the 90's, it was considered 4% or less. In the 70's, 6% or so was
> considered the norm.

The don't actually know how many are unemployed. If Gov. KNEW, they
wouldn't tell us.

lpogoda
July 5th 03, 04:54 PM
Edgar S. wrote in message
>...
>
>Deflation is NOT the opposite of Inflation. They're both occuring at
>the same time. WHY wouldn't they?
>
Inflation is a general widespread rise in price levels. Deflation is a
general widespread fall in price levels. Perhaps you'd explain how prices
overall can rise and fall simultaneously.

lpogoda
July 5th 03, 04:54 PM
Edgar S. wrote in message
>...
>
>Deflation is NOT the opposite of Inflation. They're both occuring at
>the same time. WHY wouldn't they?
>
Inflation is a general widespread rise in price levels. Deflation is a
general widespread fall in price levels. Perhaps you'd explain how prices
overall can rise and fall simultaneously.

Google