BLS does not keep statistics on underemployment; I have determined
that. I'd really have to think about how you would, actually, but...
those people are out there. I was one of them myself a couple years
ago, driving a cab too, as it happens.... to answer someone's question
to Deanna, I rather enjoyed it actually but the hours are murder and
let's face it, it's a very dangerous job, Nor does it require any
academic background.
Dana
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:12:04 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But when you say people with PhDs are now flipping
> burgers that implies many people that were earning
> over $100k are now earning less than $20k. The numbers
> don't support that theory.
>
> I'm not saying the unemployment numbers are rosy, just
> that they aren't as gloomy as some claims.
>
> -sm
>
> --- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Also the following. 0.4% is not exactly riproaring
>
>
> > growth.
> >
> > ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/realer.txt
> >
> >
> > Internet Address: http://www.bls.gov/ces/
> > Technical information: (202) 691-6555 USDL
> > 04-1807
> > Media contact: 691-5902
> >
> >
> > TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL
> > IN THIS
> > RELEASE IS EMBARGOED
> > UNTIL
> > 8:30 AM EDT, THURSDAY,
> > SEPTEMBER
> > 16, 2004
> >
> > REAL EARNINGS IN AUGUST
> > 2004
> >
> > Real average weekly earnings increased by 0.3
> > percent from July to August
> > after seasonal adjustment, according to preliminary
> > data released today by the
> > Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
> > Labor. A 0.3 percent
> > increase in average hourly earnings was partially
> > offset by a 0.1 percent
> > increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
> > Earners and
> > Clerical Workers
> > (CPI-W). Average weekly hours were unchanged.
> >
> > Data on average weekly earnings are collected
> > from the payroll reports of
> > private nonfarm establishments. Earnings of both
> > full-time and part-time
> > workers holding production or nonsupervisory jobs
> > are included. Real average
> > weekly earnings are calculated by adjusting earnings
> > in current dollars for
> > changes in the CPI-W.
> >
> > Average weekly earnings rose by 2.9 percent,
> > seasonally adjusted, from
> > August 2003 to August 2004. After deflation by the
> > CPI-W, average weekly
> > earnings increased by 0.4 percent. Before
> > adjustment for seasonal change and
> > inflation, average weekly earnings were $536.94 in
> > August 2004, compared with
> > $519.01 a year earlier.
> > _____________________________
> >
> > Real Earnings for September 2004 will be
> > released on Tuesday,
> > October 19,
> > 2004.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:39:33 -0600, dana tierney
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Fast look at this link off your link indicates
> > modest growth in a few
> > > sectors -- financial amongst them -- but a mostly
> > flat manufacturing
> > > and "other" sector.
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/jec.txt
> > >
> > > Sam, there is probably a measure of
> > underemployment, will look later.
> > > You're in the right place to find it yourself
> > though...
> > >
> > > Dana
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Subject: Re: The Election and The Economy
> > > To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > I don't know enough about this to analize it by
> > > factoring inflation etc..
> > > But the wages have gone up.
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb2.txt
> > >
> > > http://bls.gov/ces/home.htm#analytical
> > >
> > > -sm
> > >
> > > --- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > isn't there an axiom somewhere, that all
> > politics is
> > > > local?
> > > >
> > > > I have not yet looked at Sam's numbers (or any
> > > > others on the subject)
> > > > but do they make any reference to TYPE of job
> > > > created? I seem to
> > > > remember reading somewhere that the
> > administraton
> > > > was trying to count
> > > > fast-food as manufacturing job creation.
> > > >
> > > > Dana
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:03:00 -0400
> > > > Subject: Re: The Election and The Economy
> > > > To: CF-Community
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > At 13:58 9/27/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > >My point is people say we lost so many jobs
> > since
> > > > Bush
> > > > >took office, I can't find the million lost jobs
> > in
> > > > >those numbers. Also, everyone seems to compare
> > > > todays
> > > > >numbers to 2000's which was a very rare low. If
> > we
> > > > >compare unemployment to
> > > >
> > > > OK. That seems to be a valid argument. I for
> > one
> > > > believe the Bush
> > > > administration has done a great job with the
> > > > economic recovery. Of course
> > > > it's a little hard to tell that to someone who
> > > > doesn't have a job
> > > > though.________________________________
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
