there. You seem to claim there are a lot more now then
there was four years ago but there's no way to know.
-sm
--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam
>
> 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]
