Let the good times roll -- 248,000 new jobs

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by pchang
Are you being purposely obtuse?

Unfortunately not.

I'm saying it doesn't make much of a difference to me whether we have new jobless people looking for jobs or old jobless people who have started to search again. It still equals more people looking for jobs, as indicated by the rise in jobless claims. Even you must be able to see that.

So unless you have special figures which indicate that the amount of jobless claims in the US has actually gone down, your claims are merely unsubstantiated speculation.

[Dinner]

McJobs for everyone! No need to apply if you're looking for a quality job.

Jimmy, the US dollar keeps sinking because Bush keeps spending like a crack whore on a drug binge. I have a bet with Dan that the US budget deficit will grow this year dispite Bush's claims that he'll half it. I figure a man can never go wrong betting that Bush is financially irresponsible.

[pchang]

There are estimates (not sanctioned by the government) that do not try to play games with the measurement of the number of unemployed. They conduct household surveys and do not rely on:
people actively looking for work
number of unemployment claims filed
number of people receiving unemployment benefits

These estimates put the unemployment figures at a much higher level than the official government ones. They also tend to lag the government reports by about 1 month. However, most will agree that population growth results in about 150,000 new workers entering the population every month. Thus, a gain of 260,000 jobs in a month will easily surpass this number. Thus, by any consistent count of the number of unemployed, this would result in a real decrease in unemployment.

Official numbers cannot be used to make real and meaningful analyses.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
Dan, you and your fellow Neo-liberals need to get a brain.

No need to be insulting, comrade.

[DanS]

pchang: Well, the headline jobs number published by the government is very solid. Very accurate survey.

[pchang]

If every new job was a McJob, the average hourly wage would have fallen (since the average hourly wage is higher than the minimum wage). Since this was not the case, every new job was not a McJob.

Based upon the assumption that McJob implies minimum wage job.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

good news - i am no longer pessimistic about the US economy. if we continue at this rate, we will be at positive job growth since bush took office by the end of the year. thats 400,000 new jobs since the beginning of the year.

i wonder if we can calculate using change in unemployment rate after job creation statistics, what the real unemployment rate was during the peak of the recession (6.5%? 6.7%)

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by pchang
If every new job was a McJob, the average hourly wage would have fallen (since the average hourly wage is higher than the minimum wage). Since this was not the case, every new job was not a McJob.

Based upon the assumption that McJob implies minimum wage job.

Does anyone know what the average hourly wage is, and how it's changed over time? Something that takes inflation into account would probably be necessary for accurate comparison. I'm not trying to make a point either way, I'm just curious what it is. My understanding is that it's been stagnate since the 1970's.

[Odin]

Originally posted by pchang
Based upon the assumption that McJob implies minimum wage job.

Bad assumption.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Thucydides


Does anyone know what the average hourly wage is, and how it's changed over time? Something that takes inflation into account would probably be necessary for accurate comparison. I'm not trying to make a point either way, I'm just curious what it is. My understanding is that it's been stagnate since the 1970's.

It has acctually been going DOWN since the 70's if I remember right...

[pchang]

In my opinion, we should just count all the people who are of working age and subtract all the people who have jobs to get the number of unemployed. This is straight forward and cannot be mucked with. Of course, unemployment figures will be higher, but the real answer is reanalyze the meaning of these figures.

PS I am getting tired of economic analysis colored by political bias.

[Kidlicious]

What do you think about the flattening yield curve? Things are strange right now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
It has acctually been going DOWN since the 70's if I remember right...

From 1973 to some time in the mid-90s, real wages droped about 10%, even though family incomes had gone up by 50%. The rise of two income families accounts for the latter. Then, from the mid to late 90s, real wages grew considerably, such that by the end of the decade, there had been 10% growth over 1973, or a 25% rise in wages. Since Bush took office, all of the ground gained in the 90s has been lost, and we're back where we were at the begining of Clinton's 2nd term. I might be a little off on the late 90s statisitics, but that's what I remember reading.

[pchang]

however, those numbers were based upon using raw inflation numbers instead of purchasing power parity numbers.

[Odin]

The 90's wild spending binge:
Conspicuous consumption distroying my country: