|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 306 of 536:
| 
Nov 7 17:44 UTC 2003 |
Unfortunately (for you Democrats, that is) it appears that some
excellent news on the economy was released earlier today:
November 7, 2003
CNN/Money
NEW YORK - U.S. payrolls grew in October for the third straight month,
the government said Friday, trouncing Wall Street expectations . . .
Unemployment fell to 6.0 from 6.1 percent in September, the Labor
Department reported, while payrolls outside the farm sector rose by
126,000 jobs after rising by a revised 125,000 in September.
|
tsty
|
|
response 307 of 536:
|
Nov 8 08:58 UTC 2003 |
wow - trickle *through* works .. whoda thunk it?!!!
|
polygon
|
|
response 308 of 536:
|
Nov 8 19:03 UTC 2003 |
Re 304. Excuse me, but that wasn't the question. Please try again.
|
jp2
|
|
response 309 of 536:
|
Nov 8 22:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 310 of 536:
|
Nov 9 01:17 UTC 2003 |
re #306: Job numbers going up just as the holiday retailing
season begins? Boy, that Bush fella must be a real magician
to pull that off.. Surely this unprecedented and unexpected
news is enough to discredit his critics..
|
klg
|
|
response 311 of 536:
|
Nov 9 03:20 UTC 2003 |
Mr. mcnally,
For your edification, please be informed that unemployment statistics
are adjusted to take into account normal seasonal variations. Also, as
noted in the response, the statistics are for the month of September.
It is rather unlikely that hiring for "the holiday retailing season"
begins at such an early date. It appears to us that if anyone is
discredited here, it is you, sir.
klg
|
keesan
|
|
response 312 of 536:
|
Nov 9 03:56 UTC 2003 |
A friend's brother just lost his job. My brother has not yet found one.
Perhaps skilled jobs are in short supply but there are more unskilled ones?
|
polygon
|
|
response 313 of 536:
|
Nov 9 04:16 UTC 2003 |
Re 309. Since you refusd to state any, I conclude that you don't actually
have any good reasons against the federalizing of the list of nominees for
president and vice president of the United States. Just your pretended
"federalism".
|
slynne
|
|
response 314 of 536:
|
Nov 9 18:37 UTC 2003 |
resp:311 - I work for a large retail company. The holiday hiring starts
in August and really heats up in September. They try to have all the
people they are going to need for the holiday by the end of September.
|
klg
|
|
response 315 of 536:
|
Nov 10 03:17 UTC 2003 |
We did not know that.
But, we ask, are you referring to hiring or to actual active employment?
If the new employees are put to work immediately, what sort of items
are they selling more than two months in advance of the traditional
Thanksgiving start of the holiday shopping period?
You, of course, would concur with the assertion that unemployment data
are adjusted to remove the effect of normal seasonal variations, would
you not?
|
slynne
|
|
response 316 of 536:
|
Nov 10 04:09 UTC 2003 |
The biggest number of extra holiday help comes from the temporary
stores we set up. Basically, if there is empty space in a mall, we try
to rent it out just for a few months from august-sept until january-
february. I *think* we set up around 800 of those every year. That is,
btw, just about double the number of Waldenbooks stores. They need a
lot of staff for those sites. But, the sales actually start increasing
in the fall anyway so they also hire additional staff for the year
round stores too. There is a lot of work that needs to happen during
October just to prep for the holidays. They stock a lot more books and
generally get ready.
My department in the corporate office hires extra seasonal help too for
tech support. Those people are hired in August and September. I think
my team's extra help was hired in September. October is a very busy
month for us because all the stores dust off all the equipment they
dont use for the rest of the year and a lot of it is broken.
I dont know if the specific data that is being discussed has been
adjusted for normal seasonal variations or not. I suspect it has not
been. They say specifically that there has been an increase since last
quarter. A real data point would be if there has been an increase since
this same time last year. FWIW, I think that there has been but I
imagine that it isnt as large as some people might claim.
The economy is clearly improving. However, that could be just a normal
fluctuation. I am interested to see how this fourth quarter turns out.
If it is significantly better than last year, the news will definately
be good for Bush. However, the improvement will have to continue at
least through the first quarter of 2004 and preferably (for GWB)
through the second and third quarters as well in order to really help
him in the election.
|
polygon
|
|
response 317 of 536:
|
Nov 10 14:11 UTC 2003 |
I think the seasonal adjustment of employment data is probably pretty
good. I don't quarrel with the assessment that the economy is actually
improving.
|
keesan
|
|
response 318 of 536:
|
Nov 10 16:31 UTC 2003 |
I have seen Christmas lighting, and Christmas decorations for sale in the
stores, since about November 1 this year. Also Christmas craft sales at local
churches. We even stopped by one recently. Perhaps the loss of daylight
savings time triggers the lighting instinct around Halloween.
|
klg
|
|
response 319 of 536:
|
Nov 10 17:09 UTC 2003 |
Ms. slynne,
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does, indeed, adjust its Unemployment
Rate for seasonality; however, the jobs statistics are raw data.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 320 of 536:
|
Nov 10 17:36 UTC 2003 |
So a figure such as "payrolls outside the farm sector rose by
126,000 jobs after rising by a revised 125,000 in September,"
would be based on that seasonally-affected unadjusted raw data,
and the change in the adjusted data you report in #306 would be
just the 0.1% fluctuation in the unemployment rate?
|
gull
|
|
response 321 of 536:
|
Nov 10 19:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #307: Actually, I ahve to wonder if the economy is recovering *because*
of Bush's policies, or in spite of them. It's been one of the slowest
recoveries on record.
(Not that it will really matter, with Rove spinning the data like crazy.)
|
scott
|
|
response 322 of 536:
|
Nov 10 20:13 UTC 2003 |
Small changes in the economy will be swamped by the debt from the war and the
tax cuts for the rich.
|
slynne
|
|
response 323 of 536:
|
Nov 10 20:25 UTC 2003 |
resp:319 - Thanks. That is good information to have.
Honestly, I think people generally think that presidents have much more
control over the economy than they actually do have. While there are
things that they can do which can have an effect on the economy (either
in the short term or the long term), the truth is that presidents can
only control certain aspects of things.
I am not convinced that Bush is responsible for either the recent
recession or the recovery.
The war debt and tax cuts for the rich probably wont really have an
effect until Bush is long gone. I am sure some other president will get
blamed for economy when those things really start to have an effect.
|
tod
|
|
response 324 of 536:
|
Nov 10 20:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 325 of 536:
|
Nov 10 20:36 UTC 2003 |
Please be mindful that (1) the recession began before Mr. Bush was
inaugurated (that other guy was still president as the recesson
started) and (2) every person paying U.S. income taxes received a tax
reduction (particularly the lower and middle classes).
|
tod
|
|
response 326 of 536:
|
Nov 10 22:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 327 of 536:
|
Nov 11 02:27 UTC 2003 |
Republican tax cut: Here's $300.00 of your tax money back. Oh, by the way,
your out-of-pocket expenses for all those program we cut to give you your $300
and that cool Iraq war thing ar gonna be about $3000. Enjoy the tax break.
Aren't we great?!
|
klg
|
|
response 328 of 536:
|
Nov 11 03:31 UTC 2003 |
(You have facts to back that up, Mr. other? Or is that merely your
partisanship showing?)
|
klg
|
|
response 329 of 536:
|
Nov 11 03:34 UTC 2003 |
From The Wall Street Journal - Review & Outlook, November 10, 2003
Howard Dean's weekend decision to forgo public campaign financing is
playing as a big deal, but all this did was kick dirt on an already
dying system. The men really on the cutting edge of political fund
raising these days are George Soros and Harold Ickes.
Mr. Soros is the billionaire hedge-fund operator Mr. Ickes was at the
center of the Clinton fund-raising scandals of 1996. Thanks to
campaign-finance reform, these two men are fast becoming the Democratic
Party's most important power brokers.
Mr. Soros has long supported campaign finance reform. By helping to
limit those gifts to the two parties, the billionaire has cleared a path
to make himself the biggest bankroller in Democratic politics. He's
already pledged $10 million to America Coming Together (ACT), a new
outfit dedicated to spending an unprecedented $75 million to defeat
President Bush next year. He has also reportedly chipped in $20 million
to the Center for American Progress. . .
Ickes is attempting to raise $50 million for TV ads to attack Mr. Bush
next year. . .
While never charged with a crime, Mr. Ickes was called the "Svengali" of
the Clinton fund-raising operation
And now thanks to campaign-finance reform, Mr. Ickes is back in
business. His donors can give as much cash as they desire. . .
Dean has described his decision to give up federal matching funds as a
"declaration of independence from special interests." But if he wins
the nomination, he'll be the main beneficiary of the Soros-Ickes soft
money spending barrage. . . Dean would owe far more chits to Mr. Soros
than Cheney has ever owed to Halliburton.
Dean can gather all of the small-dollar Internet donations he wants, but
in the end he's still going to be relying on the Soros-Ickes machine to
get him to the White House.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 330 of 536:
|
Nov 11 03:54 UTC 2003 |
Can I just state for the record how much I love the absurdity of the
statement: " While never charged with a crime, Mr. Ickes was called
the 'Svengali' of the Clinton fund-raising operation"?
|
