It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill

On 17 Jun 2004 02:02:51 GMT, ELurio wrote:

From: James McCown

Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took
office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the
unemployment rate was at 20%. BRBR

Actually, it wasn't. The average unemployment rate in 1939 was 12%,
which was
where France was at the height of soclialist prosperity in 2000.

eric l.

According to my reference it peaked at 24% in 1933, fell to 14% in 1937
rose again to 19% in 1938 and then slowly declined. In 1939 it shows 16%

Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why didn't the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not telling
us.
phil
"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news
On 17 Jun 2004 02:02:51 GMT, ELurio wrote:

From: James McCown

Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took
office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the
unemployment rate was at 20%. BRBR

Actually, it wasn't. The average unemployment rate in 1939 was 12%,
which was
where France was at the height of soclialist prosperity in 2000.

eric l.

According to my reference it peaked at 24% in 1933, fell to 14% in 1937
rose again to 19% in 1938 and then slowly declined. In 1939 it shows 16%

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:52:16 -0400, "phil"
wrote:

Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why didn't the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not telling
us.
phil

Phil,

Unless they've changed how they report the job market, I believe
what they report are "non-farm" jobs.

Also, I don't know if they report only full-time jobs, or if they've
all even been filled. (The point I'm aiming at is that if they include
part-time jobs in the number of jobs created, you might end up with a
part time job, and still be receiving assistance. You may also have
someone doing two part-time jobs)

Also, a company might report that they've "created" jobs, but they
haven't found people to fill them yet.

Now that school is out, some of those jobs have probably been taken by
kids who are on summer vacation.

Without more info, they could be "apples and oranges" numbers.

take care,
Scott
Just one guy out of 50 or so...

"phil" wrote in message
...
Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why didn't
the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not
telling
us.

They re-classified fast food jobs as manufaturing jobs.

"PCameron" wrote in message
...

"phil" wrote in message
...
Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the
last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new
jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why didn't
the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not
telling
us.

They re-classified fast food jobs as manufaturing jobs.

I'll remember that when I go to McD's for a burger.Somehow knowing that will
kind of take the edge off enjoying it.

If a million new jobs are created and the unemployment rate stays the same
then there were probably about a million new workers that entered the
marketplace. If NO new jobs had been created then the unemployment rate
would have gone up.


"phil" wrote in message
...
Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why didn't
the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not
telling
us.
phil
"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news
On 17 Jun 2004 02:02:51 GMT, ELurio wrote:

From: James McCown

Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took
office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the
unemployment rate was at 20%. BRBR

Actually, it wasn't. The average unemployment rate in 1939 was 12%,
which was
where France was at the height of soclialist prosperity in 2000.

eric l.

According to my reference it peaked at 24% in 1933, fell to 14% in 1937
rose again to 19% in 1938 and then slowly declined. In 1939 it shows
16%

So anybody who was out of work didn't take any of the new jobs-
anybody new entering the work force didn't start from the unemployment
rolls.And it doesn't indicate the number of workers not collecting
unemployment benefits any longer and are still out of work.That means theres
an entire force of workers with experience who are still unemployed.

"Fonty" wrote in message
...
If a million new jobs are created and the unemployment rate stays the same
then there were probably about a million new workers that entered the
marketplace. If NO new jobs had been created then the unemployment rate
would have gone up.


"phil" wrote in message
...
Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the
last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new
jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why didn't
the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not
telling
us.
phil
"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news
On 17 Jun 2004 02:02:51 GMT, ELurio wrote:

From: James McCown

Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR
took
office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939
the
unemployment rate was at 20%. BRBR

Actually, it wasn't. The average unemployment rate in 1939 was 12%,
which was
where France was at the height of soclialist prosperity in 2000.

eric l.

According to my reference it peaked at 24% in 1933, fell to 14% in
1937
rose again to 19% in 1938 and then slowly declined. In 1939 it shows
16%

"PCameron" wrote:

They re-classified fast food jobs as manufaturing jobs.

That's true....and they also don't count people who have given up looking for a
job.

If some of those people have re-entered the "improved" job market, they would
be considered "unemployed" again and could be one reason why the numbers have
remained steady.


++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

So anybody who was out of work didn't take any of the new jobs-
Not nessesarily.

anybody new entering the work force didn't start from the unemployment
rolls.
Yes, that is correct.

And it doesn't indicate the number of workers not collecting
unemployment benefits any longer and are still out of work.
Yes. That is also correct.

That means theres
an entire force of workers with experience who are still unemployed.
I would never use "force of workers" and "unemployed" in the same sentence.




"phil" wrote in message
...

"Fonty" wrote in message
...
If a million new jobs are created and the unemployment rate stays the
same
then there were probably about a million new workers that entered the
marketplace. If NO new jobs had been created then the unemployment rate
would have gone up.


"phil" wrote in message
...
Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the
last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new
jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why
didn't
the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not
telling
us.
phil
"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news On 17 Jun 2004 02:02:51 GMT, ELurio wrote:

From: James McCown

Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR
took
office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939
the
unemployment rate was at 20%. BRBR

Actually, it wasn't. The average unemployment rate in 1939 was
12%,
which was
where France was at the height of soclialist prosperity in 2000.

eric l.

According to my reference it peaked at 24% in 1933, fell to 14% in
1937
rose again to 19% in 1938 and then slowly declined. In 1939 it
shows
16%

"Fonty" wrote in message
...
So anybody who was out of work didn't take any of the new jobs-
Not nessesarily.

If you check the numbers,the gov't says there were 1-1/2 million new jobs
created in the last year alone.But jobs that were lost aren't counted in
that number.

anybody new entering the work force didn't start from the unemployment
rolls.
Yes, that is correct.

And it doesn't indicate the number of workers not collecting
unemployment benefits any longer and are still out of work.
Yes. That is also correct.

That means theres
an entire force of workers with experience who are still unemployed.
I would never use "force of workers" and "unemployed" in the same
sentence.
touche'.poor choice of words on my part.I should have said that the
recently unemployed were not re-employed.
I still say something about the reports on unemployment aren't quite
right.Maybe its me,but if you add jobs,unemployment should go down.





"phil" wrote in message
...

"Fonty" wrote in message
...
If a million new jobs are created and the unemployment rate stays the
same
then there were probably about a million new workers that entered the
marketplace. If NO new jobs had been created then the unemployment
rate
would have gone up.


"phil" wrote in message
...
Right now the unemployment rate is at 5.6%.Thats where it was in the
last
quarter,but its the same after the government reported a million new
jobs
were created.
Something doesn't add up-If that many new jobs were created,why
didn't
the
unemployment numbers come down a little?Theres something they're not
telling
us.
phil
"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news On 17 Jun 2004 02:02:51 GMT, ELurio wrote:

From: James McCown

Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century.
FDR
took
office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by
1939
the
unemployment rate was at 20%. BRBR

Actually, it wasn't. The average unemployment rate in 1939 was
12%,
which was
where France was at the height of soclialist prosperity in 2000.

eric l.

According to my reference it peaked at 24% in 1933, fell to 14% in
1937
rose again to 19% in 1938 and then slowly declined. In 1939 it
shows
16%