The Glade 4.0

I believe tommrow should have a nice Job's report, who wants to guess the numbers? I will go with under 15K "created"

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Depends, who made them up?

Wouldn't the numbers be, you know, good if someone was making them up?

Not necessarily. If the numbers were *good* they're not believable. So, numbers that are badish but not *terrible* are less easily questioned.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

But that happens every month. Report comes out, press cheers on front page. A few days later a revision (downward) comes out and is buried below the fold under the obituaries.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

They don't have to be 'good', just 'better than expected'...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Those economists are wrong.

_________________

Seems to me that if fewer jobs would make things better, our economy would be the schnitz at the moment.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

That's pretty sketchy logic on your part. More jobs will make our situation worse; more jobs will compound a lot of economic troubles we're already having; and, most importantly, more jobs will simply perpetuate a system that is fundamentally broken at the level of policy. If you assume all those statements are true, however, it does not follow that "fewer jobs" will make things "immediately" or "apparently" better to most people; nor, for that matter, can you assume your cleverly concealed false dilemma is anything but a false dilemma.

Complex systems are complex. And the Law of Supply and Demand indicates, rather strongly, that those economists are wrong.

_________________

Seems to me it's got to be one or the other. If more jobs make things worse, and fewer jobs won't necessarily make things better...

Seems that, given those options, I'll take more jobs and a worse situation, 'cause your idea of better and worse seems to follow an agenda that don't care much about me and mine, and folks like me and mine.

Your idea of better seems to leave more folks hungry.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

False dilemma.
Appeal to popularity. Appeal to tradition. Ad hominem. Hasty generalization.It does? Care to explain? You're not interested in any explanation I have to give on why they're wrong; why more jobs won't save our economy; why employment isn't going to substantively; and why the job market correction that is taking place is necessary ...

If you want to be all about me and mine ...

Then maybe you and your generation should have thought about me and mine when you spent 35 years creating useless paper jobs to keep people "employed" instead of creating production jobs or maintaining production jobs instead of shifting to a "service" economy. If you really cared about me and mine, you wouldn't have spent your entire adult life supporting policies that had no end game but to make sure that each successive generation following yours inherited more debt and the longest downward wage slide in history.

Oh, and as a side note, since feeding people seems to be a concern ...

The United States produces food equal to approximately 98% of total Global Demand. If food costs in the United States are pricing the poor and indigent out of eating, you might want to start with the price fixing agencies and regulatory committees in charge of it.

And in case the apparent economic lesson of your lifetime eludes you, Taskiss, I'll make it into a single sentence:

Our government is wrong.

_________________

Khross, your continued dismissal of the physiological aspects of the rate of unemployment and the effect it has on the economy ignores real economic facets like how consumer confidence is influenced by unemployment.

I think you're out of touch with reality, to tell the truth. From where I sit, it appears that you can't handle intangibles so you consider them "appeals to popularity" and depreciate their importance. Consumer spending makes up .. what? 70% of the US economic activity, right? And the employment situation is a core aspect of consumer confidence...

Where's those facts in the 2500 words you posted?

By the way, I'm not worried about feeding people. I'm just the type that calls out misguided agendas like yours that would argue that we should prevent people from feeding themselves. You never did explain what's going to happen to folks without jobs in your economic nirvana.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm going to assume you meant "psychological" instead of physiological, seeing as how you mentioned consumer confidence. That said ...

Why are you so concerned with the Velocity of Money? Consumer confidence measures the propensity of the population to continue spending money based on what? Not much really ... it's one of those statistics that doesn't normalize any useful data or aggregate things we know about micro-economies except in the most broad and loosest of manners. After all, if people are going to continue spending money as they do now, what does Consumer Confidence tell you? If it's up, that they are likely to spend more money? If it's down, that they are likely to spend less?

Ah, right, ad hominem because you really don't understand what's being said do you?

Consumer Spending makes up some amount of U.S. Economic Activity how? What metrics and benchmarks do you want to use to make this determination? We can say that American Consumers "spend" an amount of dollars equal to 70% of GDP, but that doesn't actually tell me anything about GDP, the American Consumer, the value of the dollar, demand profiles in various market segments or product segments, etc. You think I'm not considering intangibles ...

I think you have no idea what actually constitutes a material understanding of economics and macro-economic data. How's that? I mean, I can throw insults back right?

All over the place. Although, I'd like to know how you keep arriving at the same straw-man and false dilemma despite them being dismissed it ...

Must be important for you to assert and jump and down stamping your feet that I'm saying things I'm not ...

Any reason for that?

That's because I don't make a habit of giving credence to your fictitious arguments.

_________________

Khross, can you cite any other reference other than yourself that specifically states that there are too many jobs in the US right now, this year, this month? How about "more jobs will make our situation worse", cite that. Keep it simple, no thousand word essay, it's a simple concept, someone should have been able to communicate it without sounding like ... well .... you.

I can cite ... well, oodles, that state the US needs more.

I'm thinking that an observation that you're out of touch can be settled pretty quick, one way or the other. Show that your position is specifically supported by a number of authorities and bang, you're in touch. Fail, well, that too tells a tale.


Or, I'll tell you what. Give me a couple of names of economists with stellar cred you respect and I'll do the leg work. That's all you have to do.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!