JOBS: LIARS, DAMN LIARS & STATISTICS

New York Post ^ | September 2, 2003 | JOHN CRUDELE

[sarcasm]

September 2, 2003 -- YESTERDAY was the day America celebrated workers. On Friday we'll find out how many people aren't working.

So, as I sat at home this holiday weekend with a plate of potato salad on my lap, barbecue sauce dripping down my chin, I decided to do a different kind of column: a labor-free one.

[sarcasm]

ping

[patj]

So what does this mean? Now that Bush is in office they have decided to look at the truth behind the numbers? Will the truth behind the numbers extend to the number of homeless? How about the numbers that kept the stock market artificially high? How about the accounting at the Dept. of Ed. during the Clinton years when even large accounting firms threw up their hands in despair?

[sarcasm]

Crudele has been criticizing the way the government calculates the unemployment rate for a number of years now - it did not start with the Bush administration.

[doosee]

ere's a list of some employment facts you might want to know and probably don't. These may come in handy if you want to depress a date, scare a colleague or bore a friend.

Talking points for the 9 numbnuts running for President, make then ten when we add Hillary. Does anyone think electing one of those would solve our problems in the economy? I hope not.

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

It would be interesting to know how many of those newly created jobs were taken by "illegal aliens"..... uh, I mean "undocumented immegrants". That could account for the fact that there are jobs out there, but the unemployment rates don't seem to be dropping.

[BushCountry]

ROTFLMAO -- Preemptive strike on good news! Haa, haa, you guys are so predictable and funny. Thanks for the laugh this morning.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

It's not too funny to the unemployed.

[Susannah]

"It would be interesting to know how many of those newly created jobs were taken by "illegal aliens"..... uh, I mean "undocumented immegrants". That could account for the fact that there are jobs out there, but the unemployment rates don't seem to be dropping."

As California prepares for the governor to grant drivers licenses to 2 million illegal immigrants, the left will cheer for the votes....even if it means their own jobs will be taken in the near future. I call it "trickle up unemployment."

[raybbr]

Hey guys you missed one. Or, did you?

Federal Spending on Spree:...

[grania]

It would be interesting to know how many of those newly created jobs were taken by "illegal aliens"..... uh, I mean "undocumented immegrants".

Good point. I prefer to call them the invasion force.

[eeriegeno]

* The government says it gets its new job count by surveying 300,000 businesses. But the participants are not selected randomly or scientifically. And there is no way of knowing how many of these companies reply truthfully to the government's request.

"Garbage in, garbage out."

It seems to me that the crunched numbers are not very 'bankable' since the input is not very scientific....

[arete]

I have just about given up on government reports. Everything is now adjusted, readjusted, factored, smoothed and averaged. The CPI and Personal Income reports are so distorted by fudge factors that they are now meaningless. "Even though you are paying more for an item, we have determined that you are paying less because the quality is better and since you are saving money we are going to add that money onto your income." Now that you know that you are employed even though you aren't, and that you are paying less for stuff and making more money, aren't you happy?

Richard W.

[raybbr]

I noticed your tagline. How does one man controlling all of our money translate into capitalism and free-market practice? It just hit me that Greenspan's position is antithetical to our economic system.

[arete]

Just reported on the St Louis Fed website:

"The BLS announced that, in its August 7, 2003 Productivity and Costs release, data for 2002Q4 and 2003Q1 were incorrectly reported for manufacturing, durables, nondurables, and nonfinancial corporations (http://www.bls.gov/lpc/#notices). We will update these pages as soon as the BLS releases the revisions on September 4, 2003. We apologize for any inconvenience."

Richard W.

[xzins]

Conservatives believe that able-bodied people should be working. It's best for their own well-being, it's best for their families, and it's best for the nation in that it decreases social welfare costs and increases individual contribution to the economy.

Conservatives MORE THAN anyone, then, should take joblessness by those who want to work to be a great problem, if not a great tragedy. (Liberals should be rejoicing that the unemployed must temporarily feed at the public trough, in hopes that they get addicted to "work-free" money.)

Conservatives need to demand that the money going to a new drug entitlement instead go to strengthen our military and guard our borders. While new border guards would be new government employees, they are simply necessary. They would provide jobs and security.

Conservatives also need to agitate for higher tariffs on ALL goods entering this country. This income should be used to reduce taxation, and it would protect American jobs by making the relative costs of American goods less expensive. This would increase orders for goods made by Americans.

Also, any company that farms American jobs overseas SHOULD lose tax exemptions for all aspects of that part of their business. Why should my government give incentives for Americans to lose their jobs?

Finally, we should, for long-term security interests, protect all of our heavy industry. God forbid that a high intensity world war would come about, but if it does we need our own heavy steel, our own shipbuilding, our own aviation, and our own technology. We don't need to be dependent on some foreign country for these kinds of production.

All of the above will increase American jobs.

[LS]

Now wait a minute. Not to be argumentative, but everyone here keeps arguing that the jobs we are "losing" are manufacturing jobs, not jobs that can be (or are) done by illegals. Most of these jobs are unionized jobs, and illegals could not begin to get them.

[PISANO]

Yep it is GW's fault. He LOST 150,000 jobs within 10 days after assuming office. People just started being laid off within days of his inaguration because businesses went broke and companies folded. All because the ANTI-BUSINESS ANTI-WORKER President was elected.

This is the rhetoric I listen to daily that confirms our nation's education system is in dire need of help. Yes, I know that is GW's fault too!

[arete]

How does one man controlling all of our money translate into capitalism and free-market practice?

It is actually a small group of men with Greenspan being the lead. In my own opinion, the FED is there for one purpose -- to keep everyone on Wall Street and Washington in power, happy and wealthy. They accomplish their task by creating debt and increaing the money supply (inflation). Right now, your average citizen working toward retirement is lucky to get 1% on his saving and worries about keeping his job. At the same time, Wall Street and Washington are rolling in all the newly created money and CEO's are making even more millions in pay and bonuses. Is there anything wrong with that picture?

Richard W.

[LS]

Richard, you sarcastically note that we are paying more for some items that ARE better, but it's true.

Prices of goods change with technology. In 1925, a "new" Kodak camera cost . . . $5. By the 1950s, such a camera could cost from four to five times more---still much more than the inflation index would allow. Why? Technology had improved, making the camera both easier to use and film easier to process. But consumers paid for this ease.

Now today, we are back to cameras that cost only a few dollars, because further technology has made the cost of making a camera phenomenally cheap, thus making cameras disposable. The same is happening with phones. Phones used to cost a lot of money. Today, they are virtually free. Yet new phones with digital video capability are more expensive than "traditional" phones. Why? Because they have newer, better, technology.

I've used the example of homes many times. My mother's 1950s era house in AZ had only about 60% of the square footage my house does; did not have insulated windows; did not come with central heat/air; did not have a refridg. or a dishwasher or a range; did have a garage---but most did not. They had "car ports" (i.e., a covered driveway). I could go on and on, but the difference in the price of her house and my house is actually less after you adjust for inflation and the cost of all of the things that make up the house that were not there in 1960. Moreover, as part of my house, I had guarantees that it was not termite infested, not sitting on a radon dump, and all sorts of other envrionmental protections. Now, I might agree that the GOVERNMENT should not be in charge of requiring these guarantees, but you cannot deny that these are things that simply did not go along with most home sales in the 1950s.

Furthermore, I am guessing---could be wrong---that mortgage insurance was not commonplace in the 1960s. In my case, that drives up the "cost" of my home by 10%. So, yes, prices can go up, and yet at the same time things get relatively cheaper.