248,000 jobs created in US last month; 947,000 in last 3

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by el freako
(something that hasn't happened since the 1930's).

Another Great Depression prediction!!!! Run for your lives!!!

[el freako]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Another Great Depression prediction!!!! Run for your lives!!!

Idiot,

The 1930's were of a totally different order, all my statement means is that this is the worst employment performance in a recession since then - to equate it with the depression is nonsense.

You really should learn how to read statements properly.

Originally posted by JohnT
However, the "adult population" includes a vastly increased number of retirees that didn't exist in the thirties. The ratio will decrease as the baby boomers retire in increasing numbers over the years, keeping up with the trend that started a decade ago. The declining ratio of workers to retirees is also one of the reasons why the solvency of Social Security is in question.

You are clutching at straws here (I really wish people would check out the data before they make these daft assumptions).
The BLS uses the adult population as it's denominator so, as I was disputing how wonderful DanS finds this, I used that data.

However if your (unresearched) assumption is correct then you would expect to see greatly different data if you used the working age population (15-64) as this excludes retirees - however the difference between these two is negligable.

The fall in the employment/population ratio is caused by a lack of employment growth since 1990 not by increased retirement.

[Dinner]

The way I'm reading it a recovery occurs during the period after the recession is over but before all of the loses from the recession are restored. Correct? Thus if you lose 2 million jobs in the recession but later add 1 million you'd still be in the recovery period until you gain another 1 million jobs. After you gain back all 2 million lost jobs then you could officially call it an expansion instead of a recovery.

[Dinner]

BTW MSNBC ia reporting that if the current high rate of job creation is sustained until November then Bush will break even in terms of total number of jobs. There is still the issue that many of people are making less under Bush then under Clinton so I suspect many people will still be worse off even if the best possible economic news happens between now and election day.

[JohnT]

The BLS uses the adult population as it's denominator so, as I was disputing how wonderful DanS finds this, I used that data.

However if your (unresearched) assumption is correct...

el freako, you might not have noticed that I'm the guy who brought the bls data into this discussion. My arguments might not be the most theoretically sound, but I can guarantee you that I did crunch my numbers.


The problem here is sloppy wording on your part. Here is the original quote:

One thing that is interesting about these employment numbers is the ratio of employment to adult population.

I respond with the above and you come back with the above blast and a subsequent rephrasing of your position:

then you would expect to see greatly different data if you used the working age population (15-64) as this excludes retirees

Pardon me for reading you straight - am I now to attempt to guess the intent of your words as well as their meaning? You didn't mention "working age" Americans, you referenced "adult" Americans. I responded about the subset of "adult" Americans assuming you knew what the hell you were talking about. My mistake.

Adult != Working Age.

[el freako]

JohnT,

As I stated above I used the adult population because that is what the BLS uses and it would be easy for people to go and check the data.

However your assumption that the fall in the employment ratio is caused by the rising number of retirees is what made me also bring in working population (when did I ever equate the two? - I think you are getting confused here) to show that the effect is just as pronounced when you exclude retirees.

The reason I brought up working-age population is to show that your assumption was incorrect (or at best had negligable impact).

[JohnT]

You never equated the two and I never said you did. You used "adult" in your first post and amended that to "working age" in your second, but not without taking some time for demeaning cheapshots. I respond to what you write, not what you mean, and if you can't use the proper terms then don't jump my ass for not getting your point. Capice?

[Whoha]

Gas prices won't go down, we are at 95% refining capacity right now, so even if they pump more, or we pump more we can't immediately use it. Also theres the issue of the fall of the dollar.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yep, weaker dollar = more expensive gas.

[el freako]

Originally posted by JohnT
You never equated the two and I never said you did. You used "adult" in your first post and amended that to "working age" in your second, but not without taking some time for demeaning cheapshots. I respond to what you write, not what you mean, and if you can't use the proper terms then don't jump my ass for not getting your point. Capice?

The reason you get 'cheap shots' is because you challenge the validity of my analysis and then, when I provide proof showing why the assumption underlying that challenge is false, you plead ignorance.

You say that I have not used the proper terms, well what terms would you like me to use? - Adult population and Working Age Population are the accepted terms worldwide, so how could you get confused about what I write as opposed to what I mean?

I suggest that the confusion arises not because I have not used the proper terms but because you do not understand what the proper terms are.

[Ted Striker]

JohnT is American

You are Eurocom

Therefore JohnT has won the debate

[el freako]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
JohnT is American

You are Eurocom

Therefore JohnT has won the debate

Hey Ted, I called you an idiot before - you don't need to go out of your way to prove it!

[The Mad Monk]

...six hours, and that's all you could come up with?

[DinoDoc]

Some people have lives.

[The Mad Monk]

He posts here, dosen't he?