From Yahoo! News (AP):

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/econo[/url]
my_3
or [url]http://tinyurl.com/27j9c[/url]

Are thing really picking up?

I've heard the the figures for U.S. jobless claims include
unemployment benefits extensions (which Congress, in their infinite wisdom,
ended in 12/03). That would certainly make it appear as though jobless
claims in the U.S. were on the decline. This article refers to "new" jobless
claims so maybe they're using different statistics. Of course, there are all
the recently laid off workers from Gateway and Sun Microsystems now. :-(

Anyone have any thoughts on the situation?
(I'm sure this group does)


--
I may not be fully certified, but I am fully certifiable.

> Anyone have any thoughts on the situation?

Yes.

"TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ux9yivYHEHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> From Yahoo! News (AP):
>
>
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/econo[/url]
> my_3
> or [url]http://tinyurl.com/27j9c[/url]
>
> Are thing really picking up?
>
> I've heard the the figures for U.S. jobless claims include
> unemployment benefits extensions (which Congress, in their infinite
wisdom,
> ended in 12/03). That would certainly make it appear as though jobless
> claims in the U.S. were on the decline. This article refers to "new"
jobless
> claims so maybe they're using different statistics. Of course, there are
all
> the recently laid off workers from Gateway and Sun Microsystems now. :-(
>
> Anyone have any thoughts on the situation?
> (I'm sure this group does)

You're correct in that these numbers are misleading. The headline of the
article is especially misleading. "US Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000".
This is *new* jobless claims. That is, 328,000 people filed for unemployment
in a *week*. One week. And they're using "seasonally adjusted" numbers,
whatever that means. I don't give a fsck what season it is, it's still
328,000 people. This does not mean the economy is getting better. It simply
means the economy isn't getting worse *as fast* as it was before. But
hopefully this is a trend, and there will be less and less new unemployment
claims in the future, and we'll dig ourselves out of this economic funk
we've been in for a couple years, but I'm not holding my breath.

And about the Sun layoffs - there was a thread the other day about this.
While they're still layoffs and people are losing their jobs, they can't all
possibly be tech jobs, so our little niche of the economy isn't going to be
affected as much as it *could* be, I suppose.

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

> The headline of the
> article is especially misleading. "US Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000".

But if the jobless claims previously are higher, then it did indeed tumble.

> This does not mean the economy is getting better.

I disagree.

> means the economy isn't getting worse *as fast* as it was before.

The economy has been on an upswing for quite awhile now.

> we'll dig ourselves out of this economic funk
> we've been in for a couple years, but I'm not holding my breath.

We have dug out of it. The numbers show that. The problem is, no one
believes it accept for people in the business.

would the loss of Sun jobs really flood the field with microsoft engineers
anyway? even if they were all IT layoffs...

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:OatPe1YHEHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ux9yivYHEHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > From Yahoo! News (AP):
> >
> >
>
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/econo[/url]
> > my_3
> > or [url]http://tinyurl.com/27j9c[/url]
> >
> > Are thing really picking up?
> >
> > I've heard the the figures for U.S. jobless claims include
> > unemployment benefits extensions (which Congress, in their infinite
> wisdom,
> > ended in 12/03). That would certainly make it appear as though jobless
> > claims in the U.S. were on the decline. This article refers to "new"
> jobless
> > claims so maybe they're using different statistics. Of course, there are
> all
> > the recently laid off workers from Gateway and Sun Microsystems now. :-(
> >
> > Anyone have any thoughts on the situation?
> > (I'm sure this group does)
>
> You're correct in that these numbers are misleading. The headline of the
> article is especially misleading. "US Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000".
> This is *new* jobless claims. That is, 328,000 people filed for
unemployment
> in a *week*. One week. And they're using "seasonally adjusted" numbers,
> whatever that means. I don't give a fsck what season it is, it's still
> 328,000 people. This does not mean the economy is getting better. It
simply
> means the economy isn't getting worse *as fast* as it was before. But
> hopefully this is a trend, and there will be less and less new
unemployment
> claims in the future, and we'll dig ourselves out of this economic funk
> we've been in for a couple years, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> And about the Sun layoffs - there was a thread the other day about this.
> While they're still layoffs and people are losing their jobs, they can't
all
> possibly be tech jobs, so our little niche of the economy isn't going to
be
> affected as much as it *could* be, I suppose.
>
> --
>
> KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26
>
> first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com
>
>

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:OatPe1YHEHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ux9yivYHEHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > From Yahoo! News (AP):
> >
> >
>
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/econo[/url]
> > my_3
> > or [url]http://tinyurl.com/27j9c[/url]
> >
> > Are thing really picking up?
> >
> > I've heard the the figures for U.S. jobless claims include
> > unemployment benefits extensions (which Congress, in their infinite
> wisdom,
> > ended in 12/03). That would certainly make it appear as though jobless
> > claims in the U.S. were on the decline. This article refers to "new"
> jobless
> > claims so maybe they're using different statistics. Of course, there are
> all
> > the recently laid off workers from Gateway and Sun Microsystems now. :-(
> >
> > Anyone have any thoughts on the situation?
> > (I'm sure this group does)
>
> You're correct in that these numbers are misleading. The headline of the
> article is especially misleading. "US Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000".
> This is *new* jobless claims. That is, 328,000 people filed for
unemployment
> in a *week*. One week. And they're using "seasonally adjusted" numbers,
> whatever that means. I don't give a fsck what season it is, it's still
> 328,000 people. This does not mean the economy is getting better. It
simply
> means the economy isn't getting worse *as fast* as it was before. But
> hopefully this is a trend, and there will be less and less new
unemployment
> claims in the future, and we'll dig ourselves out of this economic funk
> we've been in for a couple years, but I'm not holding my breath.
>

There are always going to be people filling for unemployment every week. If
the recent trend was 314,000 a week, then a week with 328,000 would be a bad
sign. If the recent trend was 342,000 then 328,000 is a good sign.

Zero is an unreasonable goal so you have to expect a number of unemployment
fillings a week. The number is good or bad based on recent trends, not on
it's relation to zero.

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblocker*****!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O7KV76YHEHA.828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> We have dug out of it. The numbers show that. The problem is, no one
> believes it accept for people in the business.

What business? I was referring to the economy as a whole, not one specific
sector.

I know my Sunday Globe Help Wanted section hasn't gotten much bigger over
the last few months. While not the de facto source of information about
economic strength, the Help Wanted sections of major newspapers provide a
general overview of the economy...and I see mostly medical jobs (nurses,
etc), and not much else (relatively speaking). Maybe it's just a Boston
thing, or Massachusetts thing, or New England thing, I don't know. Hopefully
things are better in your neck of the woods.

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

your trust in politicians worries me sometimes..
remember if the gov says it.. it's a lie..

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblocker*****!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O7KV76YHEHA.828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > The headline of the
> > article is especially misleading. "US Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000".
>
> But if the jobless claims previously are higher, then it did indeed
tumble.
>
> > This does not mean the economy is getting better.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > means the economy isn't getting worse *as fast* as it was before.
>
> The economy has been on an upswing for quite awhile now.
>
> > we'll dig ourselves out of this economic funk
> > we've been in for a couple years, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> We have dug out of it. The numbers show that. The problem is, no one
> believes it accept for people in the business.
>
>

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:OTHWsAZHEHA.3748@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblocker*****!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O7KV76YHEHA.828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > We have dug out of it. The numbers show that. The problem is, no one
> > believes it accept for people in the business.
>
> What business? I was referring to the economy as a whole, not one specific
> sector.
>
> I know my Sunday Globe Help Wanted section hasn't gotten much bigger over
> the last few months. While not the de facto source of information about
> economic strength, the Help Wanted sections of major newspapers provide a
> general overview of the economy...and I see mostly medical jobs (nurses,
> etc), and not much else (relatively speaking). Maybe it's just a Boston
> thing, or Massachusetts thing, or New England thing, I don't know.
Hopefully
> things are better in your neck of the woods.
>
> --
>
> KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26
>
> first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com
>
>

Just an FYI:

My Monster and Dice agents used to send me emails with jobs across the US
for the keywords "Citrix" and "CCEA" about once or twice a week. Now I get
8-10 a day from Dice, and 2-3 a day from Monster.

There is definitely an increase in demand in my niche.

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

> What business? I was referring to the economy as a whole, not one specific
> sector.

As was I. The US economy as a whole, is doing quite well.

Like I said, no one believes it. I don't know why. But all the economic
indicators that economists use say the economy is doing well.

> your trust in politicians worries me sometimes..
> remember if the gov says it.. it's a lie..

Who do you get your information from?

Jtyc opined, On 4/8/04 10:27 AM:

>>The headline of the
>>article is especially misleading. "US Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000".
>
>
> But if the jobless claims previously are higher, then it did indeed tumble.
>

Define 'tumble'. More like lowered slightly.

>
>>This does not mean the economy is getting better.
>
>
> I disagree.

You are free to do so. However, the stark fact is that jobs, particulary
living wage jobs, are not increasing at any dramatic rate. The economy
is being propped up by artificially low interest rates. If they go up by
as much as two points, what do you think will happen?

>
>
>>means the economy isn't getting worse *as fast* as it was before.
>

Potayto, potahto.

>
> The economy has been on an upswing for quite awhile now.

Upswing? Quite a while? Scuse me? So you're saying that all the people
that lost their jobs in the last four years are back to work, and new
jobs are being created in addition? Don't think so...

>
>
>>we'll dig ourselves out of this economic funk
>>we've been in for a couple years, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
> We have dug out of it. The numbers show that. The problem is, no one
> believes it accept for people in the business.
>

"We have dug out of it" See post above. Perhaps "Are digging out of it"
at best.

YMMV

*sh$t! Jtyc finally drug me in to one. fsck fsck fsck!

JaR
New Deal Thug

"JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
news:%23R6IoLZHEHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> JaR
> New Deal Thug

Excuse me, my pot is empty. Where's the line for the chickens?

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

> You are free to do so. However, the stark fact is that jobs, particulary
> living wage jobs, are not increasing at any dramatic rate. The economy
> is being propped up by artificially low interest rates. If they go up by
> as much as two points, what do you think will happen?

Interest rates do not rise that fast.

> Upswing? Quite a while? Scuse me? So you're saying that all the people
> that lost their jobs in the last four years are back to work,

Unemployment is at 5.7%.

> jobs are being created in addition?

Yes.

The "economists" aren't unemployed.

--
I may not be fully certified, but I am fully certifiable.

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblocker*****!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uxwPjLZHEHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > What business? I was referring to the economy as a whole, not one
specific
> > sector.
>
> As was I. The US economy as a whole, is doing quite well.
>
> Like I said, no one believes it. I don't know why. But all the economic
> indicators that economists use say the economy is doing well.
>
>