WASHINGTON, D.C. December 31, 1930. The Hoover Administration reported today that unemployment rolls are down because many have started own business and should be counted as employed.
Posted on 08/07/2004 3:48:28 PM PDT by The Wizard
Edited on 08/07/2004 4:02:08 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Dear Mr. Greenspan, GWB, RNC, and all good guys.....
The economy is doing great, the employment numbers are terrific and yet there were ONLY 32K new Jobs, NOT.
The only way to explain the tax cuts impact on jobs is the household numbers.....
Welcome to the 21st century.....By trying to gauge the new economy by dark age counting methods is nonsense.....
Mr. Greenspan is suppose to be smart.....how else can he explain the terrific state of the economy unless you count the millions of new jobs that have come in direct response to the tax cuts....you can't
The President must lead, he must force the inclusion of the 629K new job seen in the household reports......
New JOB are new jobs.....and the inclusion must be demanded...
If Greenspan wants to truly help the economy, he will join the living and see the new econmy for what it really is, or be pasted by as out of touch
Its better to point all the other good news... 1.6 million new jobs this year, falling unemployment rate, falling new applications for unemployment compenstation, 10,000 new factory jobs this month, more growth in factory jobs in the last year than at any time in the past 20 years, stable prices other than gasoline, continuing above average GDP growth and increasing consumer confidence. Why not talk up the undisputable rather than bring up something that is going to immediately going to be disputed and reported as non credible.
Agree, but he can't do it 85 days before a national election.
Read Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984".
"Alice In Wonderland" will provide some clues also.
Those who are employed rather than self-employed dont seem to realize that hanging up a shingle and "being in business" doesnt mean that you have any positive cash flow. It typically takes months to get your first client and then at least a month if not longer to get paid after you've finished your assignment. From the moment you start looking for that first client, complete the project, and get paid is likely four to five months if there is a demand for what you have to offer, longer if demand is weak or non-existent. In essence during those early months when you are listed as a new employee by the Household Survey, you probably bear more similarity to someone unemployed because you are both living off your savings or credit cards.
An increase in the number of self employed is probably a good thing long term, however, it is foolish to think that newly self employed are providing much benefit to the economy which is the point of seeing an increase in jobs.
Let's see.....so if I buy a job, i.e. I pay for an interest in a company, say a 20% share of the capital, in return for a director's slot at an annual stipend of $1000 per year plus $500 per board meeting, does that count as a new "job" created by the incumbent party's magisterium?
If I hang a sign on the front of my house, "laundry taken in", does that make me a "job" holder?
How about if I start a new business -- as a proprietor -- in my office? Is that a "job"? And do I get counted twice as a business launch and as a "job"-holder?
How about if I wander over to the nearest six-lane intersection and hold up a sign and a tin cup? Would that be construed as a "job"? Or would I have to sell newspapers as well, as an "independent contractor"?
How about if I slip around at night, surreptitiously emptying restaurants' grease traps and selling the grease on the black market? Would that be a "job"?
What if I re-roof my own house, get up there with a hammer, a bunch of nails and shingles and a water bottle? I'm delivering value -- same as if I'd hired a crew of roofers. Is that a "job", and the check I don't cut to the roofer my "salary"?
Sounds like some people just want to be able to quote bigger "job"-creation numbers to mask the fact that their "audience" -- as defined years ago by James Q. Wilson -- the people they really work for as opposed to the mere chumps who are stuck with voting for the two political parties, are destroying jobs as fast as they can on the altar of "cost control".
As George W. Bush if he's opposed to "cost control". Then you'll have him -- you'll find out where he's really coming from, and it ain't hiring and job-creation, no matter how much his allies talk about "job" creation.
For purposes of further discussion, let's clarify the hierarchy of employment, then:
Real Job
Move-up Job
Job
Dead-end Job
McJob
"Job"
That about get it?
These are in the household as well.
The country, for reasons I will not go into now, is shedding inefficient MFG jobs in favor of more profitable areas of need.
The framitz makers will either find productivity in the USA or move, close or diversify.
These changes are not flukes or fads and are responsible for solid increases in GDP and many new jobs. Good paying jobs.
These changes indicate an end to the industrial age and the maturation of the newer information age. The entities responsible for reporting these jobs put them in the household survey and will continue to do so.
It must be counted and applauded for gains over 600 thousand last month alone.
Sound-advice bump. BTTT.
FEDERAL RESERVE/GREENSPAN CONTACT INFO:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm
Main Telephone Operator: 202-452-3000
Public Affairs Phone: 202-452-3204
Fax: 202-452-3819
You can also ask for Greenspan's office.
Federal Reserve Board
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20551
WASHINGTON, D.C. December 31, 1930. The Hoover Administration reported today that unemployment rolls are down because many have started own business and should be counted as employed.
how about a new index?
Call it the "Total Job Creation Index"?
Total being the key word.
Reagan used the Misery index, there is no reason the USS Bush can't use such a illustrative index.
We have been moving to an information/service economy for awhile now.
Why we are using outdated job counting techniques I don't know.
I wish that were the case but the Market knows what it's doing and judging by Friday's performance (and the last few weeks) it is clear things are slowing down.
I'm self-employed, and the guy I work for owns the business. We're the workforce, in other words.
Wonder if the government considers either of us to be legitimately employed?
My guess is I'm not counted at all. As far as the government is concerned, I would only count if I handed my children over to day care or Headstart and went back to earning the government more taxes.
If the GOP would man up and FORCE the marriage penalty off the books, that would totally amaze me.
You do have a point, though. You're a non-entity, as far as the statists are concerned.
You're correct. You're not considered unemployed unless you're actively seeking employment. Sometimes the unemployment rate drops when people give up looking for a job and decide to move back home with parents or go to school or whatever. If the stock market keeps retreating though and john q public gets his september 401K statement around October, it won't be pretty for Bush in November.
Thanks. Surely the govt has formulas for including those. But you know how that goes: garbage in + garbage out.
don't be foolish......jobs mean jobs not squeegemen
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.