The Bad News About Your Job

wall street made us giants,its wall street that will make us ants

My wife lost her job. She gave up looking and she has a masters degree in statistics. We lost a lot of money since Bush and McCain believe only in supporting corporations and the rich, who are able to take unfair advantage of things and have no morals. My middle finger goes up for the Republicans and hypocritical evangelicals.

My wife lost her job. She gave up looking and she has a masters degree in statistics. We lost a lot of money since Bush and McCain believe only in supporting corporations and the rich, who are able to take unfair advantage of things and have no morals. My middle finger goes up for the Republicans and hypocritical evangelicals.

Does the U6 cover McJobs? Some people with degrees are working well under their training.
Others with skills learned on the job are not doing those higher value added and wage tasks anymore.
(Lay it on me stats folks!)

Maybe underestimating no they are underestimating. Check with the Unemployment and Agencies that ususlly hire. The job market is freezing. I know that because it is efecting me after 15 years with a company and a lack of work layoff. It is crazy. Thank God for Family and Severance Pkg I feel for the ones that got nothing. And unemployment payment amounts are a joke.

what is tragic is that this is barely reported. I'm sure you have probably covered the unemployment rate on many occasions. Why is it now that you choose to reveal to the American people the real state of our employment rate. And what misquided sense of journalistic responsability has led you to not cover this very important distiction. Not only has the goverment let us down, but also the media

The Republican Party of late, does not care about creating jobs or the well being of employees.
All they care about is business profitability, GDP and engaging in foreign adventures.

The GOP wants all employees to be meek and afraid to ask for anything. They flood the labor market with visa holder and unlawful workers. If that does not work then they threaten to send you job overseas.

It is time for a change.

I retired from the unemployment division in the state of Colorado. It is not widely known that if an claimant is denied benefits or exhausts their benefits or, like a recent graduate has no wages to claim unemplyment, they are NOT included in the percentage reported. Only people who obtain an active claim are reported. There is a huge number of unemplyed not represented in the statistics.

Watch the crowds at McCain/Palin rallies on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/bravenewfilms

Then ask yourself seriously: "Do I want this to be my America?"


Afterwards, watch this political video with Andy Griffith, Opie and the Fonz. It's a blast from the past.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d

The Economist magazine polled 683 professional economists and reported their findings. Of the respondents, 46% were Democrats, 10% Republicans and 44% Independents. The vast majority of them (over 80%) believed that Obama's economic plans will get us out of our current financial crisis. A similar majority believe that McCain's plans will make the economy worse.

While you can say that all the Dems and all the Repubs may have essentially toed the party line in this survey, it does not account for the fact that essentially all of the Independent economists said that Obama's financial plans are better than McCain's. And if they are a reflection of how Independents across America are thinking, then Obama is going to win. Also, it turns out that about a third of the Republican economists surveyed said that Obama's plans are better.

That article is in an issue a couple weeks back, still available on-line at:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127&CFID=24946653&CFTOKEN=58463805

The Oct 11-17th issue of the Economist is titled "Saving the System: the Panic, the Rescues, and a Special Report on the World Economy." Worth reading. It will help you understand what is really going on. http://www.economist.com/printedition/index.cfm?d=20081011


More articles of interest:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/business/31view.php

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_922988

Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

Dont believe me? See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating that Democrats in Congress intend to raise taxes and go on a spending spree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGnSAlqjoU

You will also hear him try to shift the blame away from himself, but what was he saying in 2003 when problems in Freddie and Fannie first started to surface:

"I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.
I must say we have an interesting example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is that the Federal Government is obligated to bail out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as I said, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy by some people."

Frank continued: "So let me make it clear, I am a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing, but nobody who invests in them should come looking to me for a nickel--nor anybody else in the Federal Government. And if investors take some comfort and want to lend them a little money and less interest rates, because they like this set of affiliations, good, because housing will benefit. But there is no guarantee, there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest, and you are on your own.
Now, we have got a system that I think has worked very well to help housing. The high cost of housing is one of the great social bombs of this country. I would rank it second to the inadequacy of our health delivery system as a problem that afflicts many, many Americans. We have gotten recent reports about the difficulty here.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, both in general through leveraging the mortgage market, and in particular, they have a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing, and that is what I am concerned about here. I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals. I worry frankly that there is a tension here.
The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."

See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

Obama in this video, addressing his work with ACORN litigation relating to the community reinvestment act and the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as they relate to the current real estate and financial crisis, states that, and I quote:

"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."

He further states:

???"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."

Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

Obama in this second video is campaigning at a convention of Acorn and I believe two other "Community Activist" organizations. Ask if he will be their ally if he becomes President, Obama says, quote:

???Yes, but let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we are going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We???re going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America.

See and hear it for yourself. Obama promised that Acorn and other groups like it will setting his agenda if elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
See also: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."
See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.

The Economist magazine polled 683 professional economists and reported their findings. Of the respondents, 46% were Democrats, 10% Republicans and 44% Independents. The vast majority of them (over 80%) believed that Obama's economic plans will get us out of our current financial crisis. A similar majority believe that McCain's plans will make the economy worse.

While you can say that all the Dems and all the Repubs may have essentially toed the party line in this survey, it does not account for the fact that essentially all of the Independent economists said that Obama's financial plans are better than McCain's. And if they are a reflection of how Independents across America are thinking, then Obama is going to win. Also, it turns out that about a third of the Republican economists surveyed said that Obama's plans are better.

That article is in an issue a couple weeks back, still available on-line at:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127&CFID=24946653&CFTOKEN=58463805

The Oct 11-17th issue of the Economist is titled "Saving the System: the Panic, the Rescues, and a Special Report on the World Economy." Worth reading. It will help you understand what is really going on. http://www.economist.com/printedition/index.cfm?d=20081011


More articles of interest:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/business/31view.php

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_922988

We need an economic indicator that somehow tracks all folks who are out of work. Consider this -- a person loses their job, possibly collects unemployment benefits for a period of time, usually 3-6 months, then gets discouraged and quits looking for work, but is still unemployed. The discouraged folks are not counted in any indicator. When the discouraged folks are counted, the overal unemployment rate is much would be much higher and a truer reflection of reality.

The unemployment numbers are much higher than the official 6.1% rate. In the residential construction industry alone the reliance on illegal immigrants, on ' independent' subcontractors, and on temporary and part time labor services means the level of unemployment at any given time is unknown and impossible to calculate. Whether 10% or 90%, the unemployment rate among construction workers would have practically no impact on the official statistics because of the composition of the workforce is itself so unofficial. The workers are paid in cash, or as subcontractors , and as such do not appear on any payrolls. When they are out of work, they usually head out of town. They can not and do not collect unemployment . Other industries which rely heavily on illegals or temporary workes( like agriculture, restaurants, cleaning services, etc.) add to inaccuracy of the official rate. In reality, only a fraction of the workers in America are used to calculate the 6.1% government sanctioned unemployment rate. The real rate is closer to 15% if the actual workforce rather than the official workforce is measured.

See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been." And also:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
Even Bill Clinton points to liberal Congressional Democrats??? protection of Fannie and Freddie from scrutiny as a primary cause of the current economic meltdown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

Obama in the last half of the this youtube link, says so as well..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related