No. I said that foreign travel wasn't included in the CPI. This is correct.
You said that meant that imports from foreign lands weren't included. That's incorrect.
Perhaps I'll have to repeat this multiple times before you grasp it. So be it.
Posted on 06/07/2005 8:14:42 PM PDT by A. Pole
you are asking me to believe that BLS figures show a growing field, with great pay - while at the same time, college matriculations for which are imploding. both cannot be true, because if it is, the entire concept of market driven forces has been turned entirely upside down. has it?
if the BLS told you that furniture manufacturing employment was doing well, would you believe it?
I don't know who they count as part of these numbers, whose salaries they are tallying. Managers, executives, anybody who says they "work in tech", or who holds a degree in it? I don't know, the BLS probably doesn't either, they just tally whatever the companies send them in the surveys.
Did enrollment in that field grow during the tech bubble? How much? Did it shrink after the bubble? Probably. Is it lower than before the bubble? You tell me.
Provide a fact. And please make sure it's from a good source, not the BLS. LOL!
No. I said that foreign travel wasn't included in the CPI. This is correct.
You said that meant that imports from foreign lands weren't included. That's incorrect.
Perhaps I'll have to repeat this multiple times before you grasp it. So be it.
its going lower, and the reason is - its not a decline related to economic activity. in other words, yes, there was a "bubble" in the employment in this field in the late 90s, and a matriculation bubble too. so the bubble burst accounts for some of this. but over the last 3 years, tech employment really isn't imploding, its just going offshore. Oracle has just as many engineers as ever, IBM too, probably more then they ever had - but they aren't in the US.
That's the difference this time - a decline related to an economic slowdown would be normal, but that's not what this is now. Most of the bubble was rung out by the end of 2001, 1st half 2002. For the last 3 years, we have been in a new phase of the decline in this sector, and its not due to economic contraction.
Its like looking at the north carolina furniture makers. are they losing their jobs because people are buying less furniture? no, in fact furniture sales are booming along with the housing boom. they are losing their jobs because they are moving to china. there isn't any way to turn it around, its not an economic cycle that is doing this. that's why I am so negative on tech employment, what's going to come around to turn it around? We aren't going to have 6+% GDP growth in the US anytime soon.
When I asked for a source I meant some source other than you. You know, with numbers and charts and stuff. Some source more trustworthy that the BLS. Some source more trustworthy than you.
free trade / U.S. Competiveness Ping
Dollar Trades Near Nine-Day High on U.S. Interest-Rate Outlook
Obviously we're at a tipping point. The dollar will only weaken faster and faster.
It's so obvious, especially when you know the countervailing factorial influences and you note the tandem vector changes. Yup, no doubt about it. We're doomed. Especially when you show what is actually happening "on the ground" so to speak.
Thanks for the ping. Sorry I missed this one.
All I know is that sophisticated multidimensional signal processing algorthims are used to track and predict markets...and still people make mistakes.
Some of the graphs and data I see presented which puport to prove a trend are IMO childishly simplistic in their assumptions and methods.
Beware of the weighted average! People sometimes use it as a subtle ploy to get somebody to agree with their foregone conclusions...
That was interesting the way Greenspan tried, lamely, to wave away the hypothesis of many economists, that the decline is actually proof of economic weakness in the markets. He merely alludes to a couple healthy sectors in the "global" economy. Well, much as they confuse the issue, the "global" economy (wherever that is) is not the U.S. economy.
He is not a journalist by trade, but an Supply-Side economist who worked for the Treasury under Donald Regan and President Reagan. He is simply doing a column nowadays, who knows why. Probably pays better than writing for any of the Federal Reserve's in-house publications. And certainly gets wider distribution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.