No recession huh?

-there is often not a even number like that, usually most of the people will be making 5-10$ an hour, but I don't see how someone making $20 on a hourly job has any more job security than someone makin 5$... the $20 people will suffer first because the company won't be able to pay them that much, or will reduce their pay, and another thing, unemployment is still low so that hasn't happened

 

I'm sorry acga5 I really didn't know that you don't know how things work in real life.

Most companies are union or at least have a union type system in place for seniority. People with higher seniority (those who have been with the company the longest) are paid the highest wages whereas those with lower seniority are paid less. Usually there is a contract in place that states what the wages will be and people with higher seniority can not have their wages cut unless everyone’s wages are cut equally. As for job security, low seniority is laid off before high seniority.

Once again you say; "unemployment is still low", how can anyone know? I’ve heard estimates of the homeless from 0 to 13,000,000. 0 may be a little low and 13,000,000 may be a little high, but that’s quite a wide margin of error. The reason is it’s nearly impossible to count them. So how does adding in an extra 5 to 10 million unemployed homeless people on to your unemployment figures affect them?

 

im sorry you don't know what unemployment is, also, many middle managers in companies are being downsized, and as a company downsizes people get fired, and there is usually a cut in pay for everyone who is lucky enough to stay with the company, unemployment is not about counting the number of homeless people on the streets, the unemployment figures represent the percentage of the labor force that are currently unemployed not everyone who doesn't have a job, so if someone loses their job and start looking for another one they will be classified as unemployed, however a homeless person who has no desire to work (or even anyone who has no desire to work) is not a part of the labor force, so yes if they are homeless and are searching for work the unemployment stats count them as well.

 

I thought that is what you'd say. First, we were talking about wages! Management are salaried employees not wage earners.
Next, can't you see what you're doing with your "unemployment" figures? Quite literally you could be saying that "unemployment is still low" if only 100 people still had jobs, just by saying the other 303,000,000 people aren’t looking for employment and have no desire to work!
You're writing people off by saying they have no desire to work, how in the world do you know? Have you ever gotten to know even one homeless person? Do you have any idea the obstacles that a homeless person faces in trying to find a job?
PS as for your; im sorry you don't know what unemployment is. I've been unemployed so I know what unemployment is! Have you ?

 

Why did the bank write loans for people with shakey credit? Please, explain. Was that a good business practice?

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/articles/2007/1/23/164321.cfm

You don't live in the real world.

Upper class people don't indulge? Why is it we can always bail them out of trouble but the working man has to own up to personal responsibility. And I don't think you'll find many day to day expenses reduced by the lowering of the fed...guess again. It may affect the market, but when you can't afford to buy milk/bread and fuel for your home and vehicle, you aren't playing the market. And that stimulus check everyone is going to be receiving. The wisest thing they can do with it is pay off some of their plastic. Credit they shouldn't probably have recieved in the first place, but the predatory banks have made a fortune off them.

 

1. Excluding those price rises that are considered "too volatile" or "statistically disruptive"
2. Reducing actual prices to reflect some arbitrary "increase in quality"
3. Ignoring quality decreases
4. An amazing assumption that as prices of certain items rise, consumers will turn to alternatives, so allowing for such "awkward" items to be excluded from the calculation
5. The exclusion of government subsidies from certain prices

This is what your source says, again, it provies no data or any kind of survery, and it doesn't tell us what its version of the inflation rate is, more importantly, i have pointed out many times that i was not talking in terms of the core inflation rate( and the core inflation rate is a useful tool because the price of energy and food and vary dramatically and can skew the results, showing that the average increase in all sectors is up when it may be up only in food and energy) anyways I talked about the inflation rate that includes food and energy

also they are very vague, they talk about "certain prices" and never mention which,
also, the subsitution effect is a well documented and studied effect, for example, if you have good x and good y and they are interchangable, if the price of good x increases the demand will fall and the lower priced y good will seem for attractive

how would they measure the quality of the goods, there are so many it would be impossible to go test all of these products for quality each month, are they going to text drive cars and inspect homes and say yes this home is of 0.1% lower quality than it was one month ago

 

if they are no longer looking for a job one could assume they don't want one, do they expect someone to just deliver a job to them? if they want a job they should search for one, and there are many programs that are set up to assist people who can't find a job, so if you are motivated and search for a job you can find it

 

You've really never talked to someone who is homeless have you?

 

you've never worked in a homeless shelter have you?

 

Obviously, you live in a fantasy world, disconnected from reality. All you do is read your fucking data and statistics, twist, bend and manipulate them, and try hard to make us take you seriously. Fuck, you're not even funny.
You're just trying to get some fucking attention.

You need to pull your head outta that hole you got yourself stuck into.






If the professional financial analysts at Bear Stearns itself couldn't save themselves and their own money from getting wiped out, what makes you think, some little punk like you with too much time in his hands aside from wanking his dick, has any credibility whatsoever.

You're just a fucking troll here, you should have been banned long ago.

Not only do you need "bailing out" from this economic mess, George Bush and the Neo-cons got ourselves into, you need to pull your head outta your own fuckin' ass.

 

You are like an ostrich. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist, or those people deserve what they get. Many programs, please name them.

Your continuing arguments on employment and inflation rates are just establishment babble. You want a site with alternative figures and charts...here's one:

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

 

Dana Perino - Your Rebate Will Save You (Haha!)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pH43hB81YLI



Another Bush, Neo-con spin to perpetuate the "illusion", perpetuate lies and more lies.

 

But those people don't really want jobs FedUp, they are only filing for what they can get for free.

 

Our system is so fucked up, our government is so broken, and yet, incredibly, Bush and his Neo-con nincompoops continue to defend this Iraqi war which so far, is estimated to have cost this country, upwards to 3 trillion dollars already.

The 3 Trillion Dollar War
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

 

Iraq wasn't about democratic/human interests or terrorism it was about oil futures and supporting a mismanaged market. It's not worth the Iraqi and other lives that have been taken, or the American economy that was sacrificed.

 

ANN CURRY: Some Americans believe that they feel they’re carrying the burden because of this economy.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, well—


ANN CURRY: The economy, they say, is suffering because of this war.


PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don’t agree with that.

ANN CURRY: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing to do with the economy, the war, the spending on the war?


PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don’t think so. I think, actually, the spending on the war might help with jobs.


ANN CURRY: Oh, yeah?


PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses.

:jester:


*Sigh* Poor George, still doesn"t get it.

 

Do we actually manufacture these things in the US? I'd like to know where.

 

if you would look at a couple of pages you would see that i already discredited their claims

also, for the unemployed, most people found new jobs between 4-10weeks (over 68%)

 

my figures are what they are, you conclusions are delusional

 

The figures you might be seeing with your head inside your ass can get all blurry. It's dark and smelly too down there.

Time to pull your head out and face the real world.