|
a good day
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
Greenspan says the economy is strong
Clinton adminitration is an embarassment
Armstrong takes the lead
let me have this day |
|
|
| imokruok |
| Today is also the 35th anniversary of the moon landing, and the 35th anniversary of Ted Kennedy drowning his shot at the presidency in Chappaquiddick. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Greenspan says the economy is strong |
How strong is an economy when we have to borrow so much to get it going? How strong will it remain when the typical conservative economic policies is to borrow the out of everything and leave the burden on future generations?
Where is the deficit at again?
If the economy is so strong and getting stronger, why are there so many people still out of work? Why are there so many people who've given up looking for jobs?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/b...=print&position
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DAE0894DC404482
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103111/
We can't even keep up with the necessary job growth needed. How is that good?
Or how about the kind of jobs we're receiving in this wonderful recovery?:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/econo...6-29-jobs_x.htm
I personally found it fallacious to put too much stock into Greenspan's claims. To me he plays too much politics and kissing up to whoever's in charge.
| quote: | | Clinton adminitration is an embarassment |
Wow, I must have been in a black hole over the past 4 years along with you. For some reason I also forgot all that that Bush is under fire over - you know, no WMD, prison tortures, lying Adminstration folks over Medicare, completely pissing on environmental standards and scientific research in general, overstating all the "grand" features of his tax cuts (weren't they supposed to trim the deficit, just like what Reagan said?), sicking Ashcroft all over our civil rights, covering up about an FBI agent trying to warn us about Al Qaeda hijacking planes (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0421/mondo1.php), hiding info. about who sat in/directed Cheney's Energy Task Force, discriminating against a sexual preference, two-facing veterans and trying to cut their benefits (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/...article&sid=803), refusing to release his paper on pre-Iraqi war intelligence (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/p...059&partner=AOL), put on the defense on Halliburton screwing the taxpayers, put on the defense for a Halliburton subsidiary illegally doing deals with Iran (from which Cheney was heading up at that time),
oh yeah, and illegally giving the name of a covert CIA agent as a means of avenging some mud on their face on Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities.
Where have we been?
| quote: | | Armstrong takes the lead |
For once I agree. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
How strong is an economy when we have to borrow so much to get it going? How strong will it remain when the typical conservative economic policies is to borrow the out of everything and leave the burden on future generations?
Where is the deficit at again?
If the economy is so strong and getting stronger, why are there so many people still out of work? Why are there so many people who've given up looking for jobs?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/b...=print&position
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DAE0894DC404482
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103111/
We can't even keep up with the necessary job growth needed. How is that good?
Or how about the kind of jobs we're receiving in this wonderful recovery?:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/econo...6-29-jobs_x.htm
I personally found it fallacious to put too much stock into Greenspan's claims. To me he plays too much politics and kissing up to whoever's in charge.
Wow, I must have been in a black hole over the past 4 years along with you. For some reason I also forgot all that that Bush is under fire over - you know, no WMD, prison tortures, lying Adminstration folks over Medicare, completely pissing on environmental standards and scientific research in general, overstating all the "grand" features of his tax cuts (weren't they supposed to trim the deficit, just like what Reagan said?), sicking Ashcroft all over our civil rights, covering up about an FBI agent trying to warn us about Al Qaeda hijacking planes (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0421/mondo1.php), hiding info. about who sat in/directed Cheney's Energy Task Force, discriminating against a sexual preference, two-facing veterans and trying to cut their benefits (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/...article&sid=803), refusing to release his paper on pre-Iraqi war intelligence (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/p...059&partner=AOL), put on the defense on Halliburton screwing the taxpayers, put on the defense for a Halliburton subsidiary illegally doing deals with Iran (from which Cheney was heading up at that time),
oh yeah, and illegally giving the name of a covert CIA agent as a means of avenging some mud on their face on Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities.
Where have we been?
For once I agree. |
true, but every economy runs on borrowing and interest.
----
japan is a good example of an economy in the late 1800's. they borrowed very little, and when they did borrow, they paid it back as soon as possible. and look where it got them. |
|
|
| occrider |
I more or less agree with Greenspan's assessment. I think everybody in the financial industry (the people who put their money where their mouth is) more or less agree that the economy is on relative sound footing. Agreed there is still some uncertainty, but overall the trend over the past several months have been overwhelmingly positive in nearly every respect despite the modest numbers that came in for the month of June. Certainly one can make comparisons to the bubble economy all day, but that's like making comparisons to the early 30's as a measure of gain ... the economic data is going to be distorted or skewed. What's important to look at in the month of June and July is not what did happen, but what didn't happen. Once we factor out volatile energy and food prices, producer prices and the CPI showed slight gains of .2% in year over year figures. While inflation is in the background it was nowhere near expectations after the growth period we've been experiencing. In addition, inventory levels have been dropping. As a result, we can expect increased production growth as evidenced by early indicators from several of the fed manufacturing surveys. As for job quality:
| quote: |
Another Look At Those Job Numbers
The Bureau of Labor Statistics says more of the recent new ones were high-paying
Sure, America is once again creating jobs. But are most of them of the burger-flipping variety, with below-average pay? Many economists are concluding just that. "America's Job-Quality Trap" is the headline on a recent research report by Morgan Stanley (MWD ) Chief Economist Stephen S. Roach. "Are the New Jobs Good Jobs or Snow Jobs?" asks another study, this one by Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER ). Job quality is also emerging as an issue in the Presidential race. On July 13, the campaign of Democratic contender Senator John Kerry argued that 90% of the jobs created during the Bush administration have been in low-wage industries. Advertisement
But new evidence shows that the pessimists may not have a case. According to data prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which have not been widely distributed, growth in high-wage jobs has actually been quite healthy. The figures show that the U.S. economy created more high-paying jobs than low-paying jobs in the year that ended in June. That's a sign that the economy is better for workers than commonly believed. It also could be good news for the Bush-Cheney campaign, which played up the numbers in answering Kerry's attack.
Why have many economists drawn such gloomy conclusions? It's largely because they've focused on employment changes by industry. Looked at that way, the signs are troubling, since job growth has been stronger in low-paying industries like retail than in high-paying industries like financial services. But even low-paying sectors boast some high-paying jobs -- and if more of those jobs are being added, overall pay growth can be healthy.
That appears to be exactly what has happened, according to the new data from the non-partisan BLS. The bureau divides up all workers into 11 occupations, ranging from management to production. At the same time, it assigns every job to one of 14 industries, meaning that the U.S. workforce can be sliced into a total of 154 occupation/industry groups, such as "management occupations in the leisure and hotel industry."
In response to a request about a month ago from the White House Office of Management & Budget, BLS supplied the median 2003 weekly wages and salaries for workers in each of the 154 groups. The median manager in manufacturing makes $1,125 a week, for example, vs. just $649 for the median manager in agriculture. The BLS has since provided the numbers -- without analysis -- to other agencies and some outside organizations and news media, including BusinessWeek.
FINER FOCUS
The new data make it possible to see pay trends within the workforce with unprecedented accuracy. According to BusinessWeek's analysis, 48% of American workers belong to occupation/industry groups where the median pay is $559 a week or more. Yet employment growth in those higher-paying groups accounted for well over half of total job growth during the past year. Average monthly employment in the higher-paying groups was 744,000 higher in the 12 months ended in June, 2004, than in the previous 12-month period. By contrast, only 408,000 jobs were added in groups whose median pay was $553 a week or less, even though they account for 52% of total jobs. (No groups have median pay between $553 and $559 a week.)
The gains in job quality come from a variety of sources. For instance, above-average growth occurred in professional occupations in wholesale trade, with median weekly pay of $908, as well as in production occupations in mining, at $665 a week.
Jobs pessimists note that inflation-adjusted pay has fallen in recent months. But that's because of an uptick in inflation, not a deterioration of job quality. Also, Morgan Stanley's Roach and others have pointed out that part-time jobs account for the bulk of all jobs created since February. Still, the overall share of part-time jobs is no higher than during the late-1990s boom, at around 18%. And most people take part-time jobs because they prefer them. Only 3.2% of jobholders were working part-time last month for what they called economic reasons.
Are there problems with the economy? Sure. But based on the new BLS data, it's hard to argue that job quality is one of them.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazin...011.htm?chan=db
|
So, my overall assessment remains unchanged. I'm all set up at work and getting econ data now. Updates will recommence this weekend. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| If you think that Clinton having an embarresment, then how are the Bushe's feeling?!?! like Puke?!?! .. heh. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
true, but every economy runs on borrowing and interest.
----
japan is a good example of an economy in the late 1800's. they borrowed very little, and when they did borrow, they paid it back as soon as possible. and look where it got them. |
yeah, but we're racking it up at a rate of over a half-trillion dollars a year! |
|
|
| JM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Greenspan says the economy is strong
Clinton adminitration is an embarassment
Armstrong takes the lead
let me have this day |
AMEN!
>JM< |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I more or less agree with Greenspan's assessment. I think everybody in the financial industry (the people who put their money where their mouth is) more or less agree that the economy is on relative sound footing. Agreed there is still some uncertainty, but overall the trend over the past several months have been overwhelmingly positive in nearly every respect despite the modest numbers that came in for the month of June. Certainly one can make comparisons to the bubble economy all day, but that's like making comparisons to the early 30's as a measure of gain ... the economic data is going to be distorted or skewed. What's important to look at in the month of June and July is not what did happen, but what didn't happen. Once we factor out volatile energy and food prices, producer prices and the CPI showed slight gains of .2% in year over year figures. While inflation is in the background it was nowhere near expectations after the growth period we've been experiencing. In addition, inventory levels have been dropping. As a result, we can expect increased production growth as evidenced by early indicators from several of the fed manufacturing surveys. As for job quality:
So, my overall assessment remains unchanged. I'm all set up at work and getting econ data now. Updates will recommence this weekend. |
To me it seems that Business Weekly only answered a part of Roach's criticism (Morgan Stanley guy). He wrote another piece yesterday, examining some other measures. Emphasis is mine throughout:
| quote: | July 22, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
More Jobs, Worse Work
By STEPHEN S. ROACH
The state of the American labor market remains the defining issue of the current economic debate. Through February, the United States was mired in the depths of the worst jobless recovery of the post-World War II era. Now, there are signs the magic may be back. More than a million jobs have been added to total nonfarm payrolls over the past four months, the sharpest increase since early 2000.
These gains certainly compare favorably with the net loss of 594,000 jobs in the first 27 months of this recovery. But there's little cause for celebration: the increases barely make a dent in the weakest hiring cycle in modern history. From the trough of the last recession in November 2001 through last month, private sector payrolls have risen a paltry 0.2 percent. This stands in contrast to the nearly 7.5 percent increase recorded, on average, over the comparable 31-month interval of the six preceding recoveries.
Nor is there much reason to celebrate the type of jobs that have been created over the past four months. In general, they have been at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
By industry, the leading sources of hiring turn out to be restaurants, temporary hiring agencies and building services. These three categories, which make up only 9.7 percent of total nonfarm payrolls, accounted for 25 percent of the cumulative growth in overall hiring from March to June. Hiring has also accelerated at clothing stores, courier services, hotels, grocery stores, trucking businesses, hospitals, social work agencies, business support companies and providers of personal and laundry services. This group, which makes up 12 percent of the nonfarm work force, accounted for 19 percent of the total growth in business payrolls over the past four months.
That's not to say there hasn't been any improvement at the upper end of the labor market, with the construction industry leading the way. At the same time, there has been increased hiring in several of the higher-end professions: there is more demand for lawyers, architects, engineers, computer scientists and bankers. Manufacturing, however, has continued to lag.
Putting these pieces together, there can be no mistaking the unusual bifurcation of the recent improvement in the American labor market. Lower-end industries, which employ 22 percent of the work force, accounted for 44 percent of new hiring from March to June. Higher-end industries, which make up 24 percent of overall employment, accounted for 29 percent of total job growth over the past four months.
In short, jobs are growing at both ends of the spectrum, but the low-paying jobs are growing much more quickly. The contribution of low-end industries to the recent pick-up in hiring has been almost double the share attributable to high-end industries.
An equally dramatic picture emerges from the survey of American households. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total count of persons at work part time - both for economic and non-economic reasons - increased by 495,000 from March to June. That amounts to an astonishing 97 percent of the cumulative increase of the total growth in employment measured by the household survey over this period. By this measure, as the hiring dynamic has shifted gears in recent months, the bulk of the benefits have all but escaped America's full-time work force.
Finally, the occupational breakdown of the American labor market, as also sampled by the survey of households, provides yet another facet of the character of the recent hiring upturn. It turns out that fully 81 percent of total job growth over the past year was concentrated in low-end occupations in transportation and material moving, sales and repair and maintenance services. At the upper end of the occupational hierarchy, increases in construction and professional jobs were partly offset by sharp declines in the numbers of production workers, who mainly toil in manufacturing plants.
Consequently, from three different vantage points - employment breakdowns by industry, by occupation and by degree of attachment - the same basic picture emerges: While there has been an increase in job creation over the past four months - an unusually belated and anemic spurt by historical standards - the bulk of the activity has been at the low end of the quality spectrum. The Great American Job Machine is not even close to generating the surge of the high-powered jobs that is typically the driving force behind greater incomes and consumer demand.
This puts households under enormous pressure. Desperate to maintain lifestyles, they have turned to far riskier sources of support. Reliance on tax cuts has led to record budget deficits, and borrowing against homes has led to record household debt. These trends are dangerous and unsustainable, and they pose a serious risk to economic recovery.
We hear repeatedly that the employment disconnect is all about productivity - that America needs to hire fewer workers because the ones already working are more efficient. This may well be true, but there is a more compelling explanation: global labor arbitrage. Under unrelenting pressure to cut costs, American companies are now replacing high-wage workers here with like-quality, low-wage workers abroad. With new information technologies allowing products and now knowledge-based services to flow more easily across borders, global labor arbitrage is likely to be an enduring feature of the economy.
Hiring always moves up and down. But it is evident from the experiences of Europe and Japan that new structural forces can come into play that have a lasting impact on job creation. Such is now the case in America.
It was only a matter of time before the globalization of work affected the United States labor market. The character and quality of American job creation is changing before our very eyes. Which poses the most important question of all: what are we going to do about it?
Stephen S. Roach is chief economist for Morgan Stanley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/o...x=buzzflash.com |
So I stand by the point that this labor picture isn't as rosy as this Administration wants to paint it.
Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal that outlines who's benefitting the most from this wonderful recovery:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email...IcaWGm4,00.html |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
To me it seems that Business Weekly only answered a part of Roach's criticism (Morgan Stanley guy). He wrote another piece yesterday, examining some other measures. Emphasis is mine throughout:
|
Well actually I thought the article did a fairly decent job of covering Roach's criticisms (particularly since the article specifically targeted roach) and it appears as if Roach is using the very same flawed methadology again to arrive at his assessment but I'll address them again ...
| quote: |
July 22, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
More Jobs, Worse Work
By STEPHEN S. ROACH
The state of the American labor market remains the defining issue of the current economic debate. Through February, the United States was mired in the depths of the worst jobless recovery of the post-World War II era. Now, there are signs the magic may be back. More than a million jobs have been added to total nonfarm payrolls over the past four months, the sharpest increase since early 2000.
These gains certainly compare favorably with the net loss of 594,000 jobs in the first 27 months of this recovery. But there's little cause for celebration: the increases barely make a dent in the weakest hiring cycle in modern history. From the trough of the last recession in November 2001 through last month, private sector payrolls have risen a paltry 0.2 percent. This stands in contrast to the nearly 7.5 percent increase recorded, on average, over the comparable 31-month interval of the six preceding recoveries.
|
The author is assuming that all recessions are the same and therefore all recessions should exhibit the same economic signs of recovery. for example, the most recent recession wasn't due to an underemployed workforce which may have been the case for previous recessions, it was due to a bubble economy with an overemployed workforce. Companies were losing profits and going out of business. So whilst an underemployed economic recession may begin to climb out of that recession by adding more employees as demand picked up, this recession reversed itself with companies laying off workers and becoming more efficient by ridding itself of excess waste. So while the economy may have begun to climb out of its recession in november of 2001, the recessionary trough of the labor force didn't happen until January of 2003. Since then, payrolls have increased by 3.2%. We'll see if those numbers don't attain 7.5% in the 31 month interval from January of 2003. So unless you want to label all recessions are the same, than Roach's criticisms don't particularly apply.
| quote: |
Nor is there much reason to celebrate the type of jobs that have been created over the past four months. In general, they have been at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
By industry, the leading sources of hiring turn out to be restaurants, temporary hiring agencies and building services. These three categories, which make up only 9.7 percent of total nonfarm payrolls, accounted for 25 percent of the cumulative growth in overall hiring from March to June. Hiring has also accelerated at clothing stores, courier services, hotels, grocery stores, trucking businesses, hospitals, social work agencies, business support companies and providers of personal and laundry services. This group, which makes up 12 percent of the nonfarm work force, accounted for 19 percent of the total growth in business payrolls over the past four months.
That's not to say there hasn't been any improvement at the upper end of the labor market, with the construction industry leading the way. At the same time, there has been increased hiring in several of the higher-end professions: there is more demand for lawyers, architects, engineers, computer scientists and bankers. Manufacturing, however, has continued to lag.
Putting these pieces together, there can be no mistaking the unusual bifurcation of the recent improvement in the American labor market. Lower-end industries, which employ 22 percent of the work force, accounted for 44 percent of new hiring from March to June. Higher-end industries, which make up 24 percent of overall employment, accounted for 29 percent of total job growth over the past four months.
In short, jobs are growing at both ends of the spectrum, but the low-paying jobs are growing much more quickly. The contribution of low-end industries to the recent pick-up in hiring has been almost double the share attributable to high-end industries.
|
Huh? This is the very analysis methadology the BW article attacks. Once again Roach is attempting to interpret wage by industry. However, it's flawed because it fails to analyze wage changes within the industry itself. That's like saying a new job is created as a cook which now pays $80,000/year is considered a low quality job because historically that industry has been low paying. The new BLS data now creates different divisions within each industry and calculates median earnings of each division within that particular industry. Therefore we can now see what kind of jobs are being created in an industry as a whole and find out EXACTLY how much those jobs are paying instead of generalizing on the basis of what industry it's in. Essentially we've traded a magnifying glass in for an electron microscope. The data demonstrates that nearly half of the new jobs created were in the higher paying groups. You can keep telling me that the speck we're examining is a diamond with your handy magnifying glass, but I'm going to ignore you because my fancy electron microscope tells me it's a peice of dirt.
| quote: |
An equally dramatic picture emerges from the survey of American households. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total count of persons at work part time - both for economic and non-economic reasons - increased by 495,000 from March to June. That amounts to an astonishing 97 percent of the cumulative increase of the total growth in employment measured by the household survey over this period. By this measure, as the hiring dynamic has shifted gears in recent months, the bulk of the benefits have all but escaped America's full-time work force. |
The BW article addresses this as well ...
"Morgan Stanley's Roach and others have pointed out that part-time jobs account for the bulk of all jobs created since February. Still, the overall share of part-time jobs is no higher than during the late-1990s boom, at around 18%. And most people take part-time jobs because they prefer them. Only 3.2% of jobholders were working part-time last month for what they called economic reasons."
Notice how Roach doesn't tell you the division of workers who are working part time jobs for economic reasons? Of course not, because if he said 3.2% you'd laugh at him. I actually did laugh at that part haha.
| quote: |
Finally, the occupational breakdown of the American labor market, as also sampled by the survey of households, provides yet another facet of the character of the recent hiring upturn. It turns out that fully 81 percent of total job growth over the past year was concentrated in low-end occupations in transportation and material moving, sales and repair and maintenance services. At the upper end of the occupational hierarchy, increases in construction and professional jobs were partly offset by sharp declines in the numbers of production workers, who mainly toil in manufacturing plants.
Consequently, from three different vantage points - employment breakdowns by industry, by occupation and by degree of attachment - the same basic picture emerges: While there has been an increase in job creation over the past four months - an unusually belated and anemic spurt by historical standards - the bulk of the activity has been at the low end of the quality spectrum. The Great American Job Machine is not even close to generating the surge of the high-powered jobs that is typically the driving force behind greater incomes and consumer demand.
This puts households under enormous pressure. Desperate to maintain lifestyles, they have turned to far riskier sources of support. Reliance on tax cuts has led to record budget deficits, and borrowing against homes has led to record household debt. These trends are dangerous and unsustainable, and they pose a serious risk to economic recovery.
We hear repeatedly that the employment disconnect is all about productivity - that America needs to hire fewer workers because the ones already working are more efficient. This may well be true, but there is a more compelling explanation: global labor arbitrage. Under unrelenting pressure to cut costs, American companies are now replacing high-wage workers here with like-quality, low-wage workers abroad. With new information technologies allowing products and now knowledge-based services to flow more easily across borders, global labor arbitrage is likely to be an enduring feature of the economy.
Hiring always moves up and down. But it is evident from the experiences of Europe and Japan that new structural forces can come into play that have a lasting impact on job creation. Such is now the case in America.
It was only a matter of time before the globalization of work affected the United States labor market. The character and quality of American job creation is changing before our very eyes. Which poses the most important question of all: what are we going to do about it?
Stephen S. Roach is chief economist for Morgan Stanley.
|
Well, if we've refuted his job quality assessment than there's not much point in addressing the points he makes about the ramifications of low job quality ...
| quote: |
So I stand by the point that this labor picture isn't as rosy as this Administration wants to paint it.
Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal that outlines who's benefitting the most from this wonderful recovery:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email...IcaWGm4,00.html |
And that's why I'm for an increase in taxes now that the economy is stimulated ... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well actually I thought the article did a fairly decent job of covering Roach's criticisms (particularly since the article specifically targeted roach) and it appears as if Roach is using the very same flawed methadology again to arrive at his assessment but I'll address them again ...
The author is assuming that all recessions are the same and therefore all recessions should exhibit the same economic signs of recovery. for example, the most recent recession wasn't due to an underemployed workforce which may have been the case for previous recessions, it was due to a bubble economy with an overemployed workforce. Companies were losing profits and going out of business. So whilst an underemployed economic recession may begin to climb out of that recession by adding more employees as demand picked up, this recession reversed itself with companies laying off workers and becoming more efficient by ridding itself of excess waste. So while the economy may have begun to climb out of its recession in november of 2001, the recessionary trough of the labor force didn't happen until January of 2003. Since then, payrolls have increased by 3.2%. We'll see if those numbers don't attain 7.5% in the 31 month interval from January of 2003. So unless you want to label all recessions are the same, than Roach's criticisms don't particularly apply.
Huh? This is the very analysis methadology the BW article attacks. Once again Roach is attempting to interpret wage by industry. However, it's flawed because it fails to analyze wage changes within the industry itself. That's like saying a new job is created as a cook which now pays $80,000/year is considered a low quality job because historically that industry has been low paying. The new BLS data now creates different divisions within each industry and calculates median earnings of each division within that particular industry. Therefore we can now see what kind of jobs are being created in an industry as a whole and find out EXACTLY how much those jobs are paying instead of generalizing on the basis of what industry it's in. Essentially we've traded a magnifying glass in for an electron microscope. The data demonstrates that nearly half of the new jobs created were in the higher paying groups. You can keep telling me that the speck we're examining is a diamond with your handy magnifying glass, but I'm going to ignore you because my fancy electron microscope tells me it's a peice of dirt.
The BW article addresses this as well ...
"Morgan Stanley's Roach and others have pointed out that part-time jobs account for the bulk of all jobs created since February. Still, the overall share of part-time jobs is no higher than during the late-1990s boom, at around 18%. And most people take part-time jobs because they prefer them. Only 3.2% of jobholders were working part-time last month for what they called economic reasons."
Notice how Roach doesn't tell you the division of workers who are working part time jobs for economic reasons? Of course not, because if he said 3.2% you'd laugh at him. I actually did laugh at that part haha.
Well, if we've refuted his job quality assessment than there's not much point in addressing the points he makes about the ramifications of low job quality ...
And that's why I'm for an increase in taxes now that the economy is stimulated ... |
Uhh, uhh, there are no transitional fossils. Yeah, that's it!
Ahh , it's Friday, great input as usual on the economic forefront Occ., and I'll see ya on Monday! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Uhh, uhh, there are no transitional fossils. Yeah, that's it!
Ahh , it's Friday, great input as usual on the economic forefront Occ., and I'll see ya on Monday! |
Happy Drinking! I've been ignoring that evolution thread too long ... must destroy religion ... |
|
|
|
|
