Interesting reuters piece -- just two comments, I think productivity figures are
squishy at best (that's a technical term). In the last inventory report (about
two weeks ago), inventories had begun to go down and the manufacturers index
(napaam i think) show less than growth but it hadn't fallen.
I agree, I think the only reason the newer layoffs are news is because
they are talking better-paid, skilled workers. However, this week's
unemployment application figures took a huge jump, so maybe we will end
up in a real recession after all. I mean Georgie W has been BEGGING for
one. mag
I don't think the law requires their announcement -- wall street does. The
street interprets layoffs as corporations becoming more profit oriented -- that
old lean and mean song we haven't heard since the early 1990s. maggie coleman
Jim Devine wrote:
> Doug writes:
> >I looked at one of those
There is and there isn't a glut in fiber. For large corporations there probably is
some sort of excess, but that is a small, small portion of the telecom industry. For
instance, Manhattan south of Chambers Street probably has fiber going to most
buildings, but small businesses outside a few m
Greetings Economists,
Maggie Coleman writes,
The unemployment rate fell by a tenth last month, instead of going up as
everyone predicted. This is despite all the tech closings and lay
offs. Anyone want to guess why? I think that the layoffs this time are
amongst the white collar, skilled worke
Jim Devine wrote:
>my impression is that the layoff numbers arise because the law
>requires that layoffs be announced before they happen. Firms have an
>incentive to exaggerate since an under-count will be criticized more
>harshly (I don't know if there are legal penalties) and it scares
>the
Doug writes:
>I looked at one of those layoff series (Ed Hyman's, not the more prominent
>Challenger one) and it correlated with nothing - not employment,
>unemployment, initial claims, or even the BLS's mass layoffs. They're
>mainly PR aimed at Wall Street, I think.
my impression is that the
Margaret Coleman wrote:
>true -- a 1/10 decrease in one month could also be faulty
>statistics. however,
>the fact that the rate did not go up with all the announcements of
>layoffs is a
>surprise. maybe i'm getting brain washed by cnnfn.
I looked at one of those layoff series (Ed Hyman's, n
Elstrom, Peter. 2001. "Telecom Meltdown." Business Week (23 April): pp. 100-10.
105: "The model for how to make a fortune in the new world of telecom was set by
one oft-forgotten telephone company: MFS Communications Co. Led by James Q. Crowe,
MFS laid telephone lines around major cities th
In response to Doug,
That's interesting that participation and labor force fell (well the two
frequently, though not always, move together). Any guesses on why? (or
explanations?) I'll have to go look up the most recent employment situation
reports and read the demographics. I am truly curious
The best place to go to for a blow-by-blow, everything you ever wanted
to know and were afraid to ask, definition of all the employment figures
(unemployed, employed, unemployment, discouraged workers -- levels and
rates) is www.bls.gov. maggie coleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug wrote,
> . .
true -- a 1/10 decrease in one month could also be faulty statistics. however,
the fact that the rate did not go up with all the announcements of layoffs is a
surprise. maybe i'm getting brain washed by cnnfn. maggie coleman
Jim Devine wrote:
> At 09:55 PM 06/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >The
Yes, according to official bls definitions, institutionalized means mental
institutions, jails, or any place where you might be incarcerated against your
will. Employment statistics also omit military, students, anyone voluntarily
unemployed (as in retired), and anyone who has not looked for a jo
The Corporate and Telecom debt has been increasing steadily for the last decade. As
Henwood's Wall Street book shows, the increase in corporate debt has risen far faster
than the increase in consumer debt -- hard to imagine since consumer debt is so high.
Telecom debt began when more and more
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>question: doesn't non-institutionalized also mean "not in a mental
>>institution" (and by that I don't mean a university)?
This overlap between the language of "mental" and "academic"
institutions is striking.
"Sectioning" in the US involves dividing groups of undergradu
Doug wrote,
> . . .who are not inmates of
> institutions (e.g., penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged)..
Slightly fuller defintion (BLS Handbook on Methods): "The institutional
population . . . consists of inmates of penal and mental institutions,
sanitariums, and homes for the aged
Jim Devine wrote:
>question: doesn't non-institutionalized also mean "not in a mental
>institution" (and by that I don't mean a university)?
Yup. Here's the official def: "Civilian noninstitutional population.
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50
States and the Di
At 03:58 PM 6/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>What's the difference between the EPR and the participation rate?
>
>EPR = employed/adult population.
>
>LFPR = (unemployed+employed)/adult population.
>
>Adult pop = noninstitutionalized (i.e., not jailed) and 16 and over.
questi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What's the difference between the EPR and the participation rate?
EPR = employed/adult population.
LFPR = (unemployed+employed)/adult population.
Adult pop = noninstitutionalized (i.e., not jailed) and 16 and over.
Doug
>Because the U.S. labor force fell by 485,000. Employment (in the
household survey) fell by about 252,000. The EPR fell by 0.1
percentage point to 63.9%, down from 64.5% in January. The
participation rate fell by 0.3 points.
What's the difference between the EPR and the participation rate?
Margaret Coleman wrote:
>The unemployment rate fell by a tenth last month, instead of going up as
>everyone predicted. This is despite all the tech closings and lay
>offs. Anyone want to guess why?
Because the U.S. labor force fell by 485,000. Employment (in the
household survey) fell by abou
Hello Economists,
Rob Schaap writes me in reply about where I got the figure of 700
billion for the Telecom debts. Sorry can't make the exact quote. I put it
in an email to friends about a month ago. I recollect I saw it in the Lex
column in the Financial Times. But I assume it can be look
G'day Maggie and Doyle,
> Margaret Coleman briefly remarks, The unemployment rate fell by a tenth last month,
>instead of going up as everyone predicted. This is despite all the tech closings and
>lay offs. Anyone want to guess why? I think that the layoffs this time are amongst
>the white
At 09:55 PM 06/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>The unemployment rate fell by a tenth last month, instead of going up as
>everyone predicted.
part of the problem is that month-to-month changes in the unemployment rate
have a low signal-to-noise ratio.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.
Greetings Economists,
Margaret Coleman briefly remarks,
The unemployment rate fell by a tenth last month, instead of going up as
everyone predicted. This is despite all the tech closings and lay
offs. Anyone want to guess why? I think that the layoffs this time are
amongst the white collar, ski
25 matches
Mail list logo
