Night of the Living ComCap Debate....

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I never said that jobs weren't created. I said that the umemployment rate is what matters. Another thing that matters is the inequality in income.

Okay, so jobs being created don't have anything to do with the unemplyment rate? Which btw, has been pretty much level over the last year (by the charts I have seen).

Originally posted by Kidicious
You're responsible for getting your own cites now since you decided to just pretend that I was making an argument that I wasn't making last time. Everyone knows that the weekly jobless claims have been over 400,000 for quite some time now.

Let's put this one to bed. The 400,000 NEW claims level is considered normal. Anything above that is thought to be a "soft" market, and anything below that is considered good. For the week ended June 14th the figure was 356,000 adjusted, which is good. You treat this number like an indication of jobs being lost at that rate. The 400,000 level is just turn-over. The same amount get a job, the same amount lose a job. It should also be noted for fairness, that the lower rate seen for the current figures could also be a reflection of the bad weather being seen in the midwest and north-east. Less people tend to file if the weather is bad, go figure. They put it off until the weather is better.

Originally posted by Kidicious
You convenienly got confused again. I have no idea what you are talking about. I just explained the long term and short term trends.

I'll leave this one to vel

[Velociryx]

Because you made the statement, not me. So back it up.

What's your source?

For the record, I looked, and found nothing approaching 1.2 million job losses per month for "quite some time" as your post indicates.

Case in point - March 2003: 308,000 (or 77000 per week....which is less than 20% of your figure).

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Nope just saying that even in bad times there is a silver lining. Were it not for the massive publics works programs enacted through FDR the US would not have been poised to become an even more productive and growing society once the depression was over.

Econommists call that insignificant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Because you made the statement, not me. So back it up.

What's your source?

For the record, I looked, and found nothing approaching 1.2 million job losses per month for "quite some time" as your post indicates.

Case in point - March 2003: 308,000 (or 77000 per week....which is less than 20% of your figure).

-=Vel=-

Are you counting on people being totally stupid to believe your lies. You have already demonstrated your games. Find me the weekly jobless claims and give me a cite. I already showed you a cite the last time and proved you wrong, and you were very ungentlemanly about it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Meldor
The same amount get a job, the same amount lose a job.

You people are shameless. Show me a statistic that shows that the same amount of jobs were created.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm...when was this? I musta slept through that one? I remember you showing me a cite, claiming that mental illness was caused by poverty, only to read the article you cited to discover that poverty was listed as one of the contributing factors (contributing factor =/ cause...'least not on this planet), and that (from the article) more than one third of mental illness is behaviorally linked

Neither of which is the same thing as what you said.

And for the record, "jobless claims" are not the same thing as jobs lost from the economy--have you ever heard of the term "turnover"??? You're using apples to flesh out an oranges argument.

-=Vel=-

(ps: http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sa...3/daily51.html) is where I got the numbers above from.

[Kidlicious]

What are the causes of mental retardation?

The causes can be categorized as follows:

Poverty and cultural deprivation - Children in poor families may become mentally retarded because of malnutrition, disease-producing conditions, inadequate medical care and environmental health hazards. Also, children in disadvantaged areas may be deprived of many common cultural and day-to-day experiences provided to other youngsters. Research suggests that such under-stimulation can result in irreversible damage and can serve as a cause of mental retardation.


Introduction to Mental Retardation

Shameless

[Velociryx]

Mental retardation =/ mental illness. Separate issue (and I note that you provide a new and different link this time, since the last one obviously didn't work out so well!)

You dance around from position to position like a stoned ballerena, scampering away from positions when we prove you wrong, or prove that you're taking published statements out of context to suit your arguments and charge off to find some new (safer) ground, and call ME shameless!? That's beautiful!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Oh, and in case anybody is curious (since I know Kid won't voluntarily bring it up), the article lists five major contributors to mental retardation:

Genetic conditions, Problems during pregnancy, Problems at birth, Problems after birth, Poverty and cultural deprivation--listed last. I've not finished reading the article yet, but so far, there's no mention of which of these figures is the leading contributor (haven't seen any percentages yet), but of course, if you just look at Kid's post, you get the impression that the article says that poverty CAUSES mental retardation, which was exactly what he wanted.

Clearly, his own source does not say as much.

But I'm a shameless liar? (kid's words)

-=Vel=-

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You people are shameless. Show me a statistic that shows that the same amount of jobs were created.

Yes, I am a shameless believer in our capitalism. Sorry if it offends you.

Here is what you asked for...

First, this comes from the US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Click on the name for the link you need and then select Get Detailed Statistics. Now lets look at the unemplyment rate (we could have used a lot of stats). The delta in this indicates the addition or loss of jobs. While it isn't at the absurdly low levels we had late 90s it is at a reasonable number and the current month is running less than 6.0%.

Here is the table:



Notice that the rate is relatively steady, a which it wouldn't be if we were bleeding 400,000 jobs a month.

[Velociryx]

Meldor...nice try, but it's obvious that these numbers simply lie! Kid has informed us that the US economy is shedding 1.2 million dollars a month, it MUST BE TRUE!



-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

You guys are unable to make an argument, just childish games. You think you're debating with children.

[Meldor]

Let me help you out Vel with some stuff from the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, part of the CDC. They list the following common causes of Mental Retardation:

Down syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, and fragile X syndrome, all of which occur before birth.

And list other causes (uncommon) as:

genetic conditions (such as Cri-du-chat syndrome or Prader-Willi syndrome), infections (such as congenital cytomegalovirus), or birth defects that affect the brain (such as hydrocephalus or cortical atrophy). Other causes of mental retardation (such as asphyxia) happen while a baby is being born or soon after birth. Still other causes of mental retardation do not happen until a child is older. These may include serious head injury, stroke, or certain infections such as meningitis.

I didn't see either poverty or capitalism on that list.

[Velociryx]

Wha????

Kid, I....I don't even know what to say in response to that.

You asked for the data. We provided you the data. Rather than try and dispute it or tell us why our data is invalid, you simply blow it off, calling it "childish" (if you bother to acknowledge it at all).

Contrast that with what happens when you provide us data.

We go look at it, dig into it, and refute specific points about your data and how you slanted it when you presented it to us.

So who's playing games?

My recommendation would be to not cite a source unless you're being forthcoming about everything it says (else you'll get called on the parts you "conveniently" leave out). A second recommendation would be to actually attempt to refute some of our data. I know that's more difficult than simply blowing it off or pretending you didn't see it, but given that we're doing you that courtesy, it'd sure be nice....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Rock on, Meldor, and thank ya!

-=Vel=-