Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Yes -- and in more ways than one.

A lady in public and a whore in the bedroom, exactly what a man wants in a woman.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Courtesy of Professor DeLong, here's part of the Economist's take on the recent employment news:

On Friday December 5th, the Bureau of Labour Statistics announced that another 57,000 Americans were added to the (non-farm) payrolls in November.... [T]he labour market is still far from strong.... With output roaring away, analysts had expected hiring to move up a gear, adding 150,000 to 200,000 people to the payrolls. Instead, the labour market remains in neutral. There may be a few more jobs than a month ago, but there are also more people to find jobs for. About 140,000 people enter the labour force on average every month.... Output often recovers before employment, because firms hesitate to add to workforces they have just finished cutting. But in most recoveries, this hesitation lasts only about three months. This time round... it lasted a year and a half.... [P]ayroll employment is still 700,000 lower than it was when the recession ended in November 2001....

It may be little consolation to Mr Bush junior, but strong growth coupled with tepid hiring is doing marvellous things to the productivity numbers.... The problem with creative destruction is that the destruction seems to arrive long before the creation.

A puzzle for economists, jobless recoveries are also a conundrum for psephologists, who study presidential elections. We know it's the economy, stupid, but is it growth or jobs that have most bearing on the way people vote?.... Professor Michael Lewis-Beck of the University of Iowa and Charles Tien of Hunter College think unemployment is a more decisive factor. In every election since the second world war, falling unemployment in the spring of election year has foretold victory for the party in charge of the White House...

Aside to sgtclub: Being good doesn't make you a ho.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

Aside to sgtclub: Being good doesn't make you a ho.

Didn't mean it in the promiscous way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Didn't mean it in the promiscous way.

Nevertheless, not a word I would recommend using with that special lady in your life.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Nevertheless, not a word I would recommend using with that special lady in your life.

My special lady likes it.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I need to look into these number, before forming an opinion, but my initial thought is that I'm not concerned if people are voluntarily leaving because they are discouraged. Tough frickin luck. No one owes anybody a living.

Look sonny (just kidding bout that part), I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for crackheads, drug dealers, pornographers, welfare queens or the remaining members of the Clinton fan club either (hyperbole!).

But you and I both know its in our best interests for the economy to be running so full-steam that these people were working. Idle hands are the democrat's playground, or something like that. People who are both discouraged and unemployed are almost certainly those who piss us off the most. These are people who [we, me and you, think] can work. But if they are discouraged and unemployed, these are the people who start using drugs or depending on the government or family and friends or charities.

And they certainly aren't contributing to the tax base or whatever else.

So, while I agree that I don't feel sorry for them, and tough friggin luck blah blah blah on a personal level, it would be better for you and me and everyone else if they were working and paying taxes etc.

And that is where I'm coming from on this issue.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
People who are both discouraged and unemployed are almost certainly those who piss us off the most.

Probably not, actually. "Discouraged" is a term of art. It includes people who, e.g., have gone back to school or married and decided to stay home.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I need to look into these number, before forming an opinion, but my initial thought is that I'm not concerned if people are voluntarily leaving because they are discouraged. Tough frickin luck. No one owes anybody a living.

I wouldn't ask you to be concerned about those individuals -- that's not why they measure unemployment. The point is more that it is a bad thing for the economy if some percentage (even 1-2%) of the working age population simply decides not to try to work, pay taxes, spend the resulting income, etc.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Probably not, actually. "Discouraged" is a term of art. It includes people who, e.g., have gone back to school or married and decided to stay home.

Ahh, Flippidian logic. Think of who pisses you off. Scratch that. Think of who pisses people like me and Sgt. Club off.

Think of it like a Venn diagram. You have a big circle (A) with two small circles (1 and 2) inside.

If you took a look at the composite, its almost certainly welfare-types and criminals (though I am sympathetic to inner city youths generally when they get caught up in, e.g., selling narcotics). Those could be defined as, e.g., "small circle number 1 group".

Then you have the back-to-school and married/staying home people. Those could be defined as, e.g., "small circle number 2 group".

So yes, those who piss me off are almost certainly those who are discouraged and unemployed, though not everyone who is discouraged and unemployed pisses me off.

Hello

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
This is just fantasy that people "leave" the workforce because they get discouraged. What, do they just wake up one day and say, "Oh, I have been pounding the pavement for 5 months now and I am just discouraged, so I guess I going to drop out of the labor force and stop eating."

You possess an interesting combination of ignorance and self-confidence.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Question, was that cocaine use ever admitted or verified for Bush? It just struck me again this week, I really really really have a problem with that (hi FB!) in the background of a president. Fuck me. Dean?
Hello

Well -- AFAIK he was never arrested for possession, or tested high. OTOH -- He refuses to answer any questions about his drug use before a certain date in the early to mid-1970s on grounds of relevance, and when questioned, would not say that he had never used cocaine.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Probably not, actually. "Discouraged" is a term of art. It includes people who, e.g., have gone back to school or married and decided to stay home.

I wouldn't let your special lady know that you label those who get married "discouraged," term of art or not. I think she would rather you call her a whore (only in the heat of passion, of course, and as kind of a compliment about her sexual skills) than find out getting married is something you think the discouraged do.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well -- AFAIK he was never arrested for possession, or tested high. OTOH -- He refuses to answer any questions about his drug use before a certain date in the early to mid-1970s on grounds of relevance, and when questioned, would not say that he had never used cocaine.

S_A_M

Were all of these posts today and yesterday (not this one - I just don't have the heart to go back and read any of 'em, they were so . . . strange) truly discussing the idea that there is no jobs recovery, that whatever measured decrease we've seen has simply been drop-outs, and that we thus are not in a true recovery?

My gawd, people.

A. You truly do NOT know why unemployment is called a trailing indicator.

B. You truly do NOT understand the concept of system drop-outs.

C. You are falling for the absolute worst of the Krugman "it's Bush, so it's gotta suck, no matter the reality" schtick.

This is sad.

[Not Me]

ɏriginally posted by bilmore
Were all of these posts today and yesterday (not this one - I just don't have the heart to go back and read any of 'em, they were so . . . strange) truly discussing the idea that there is no jobs recovery, that whatever measured decrease we've seen has simply been drop-outs, and that we thus are not in a true recovery?

Ummm, no. They were mostly about me being skeptical about this concept that large numbers of people can be dropping out of the labor market (at least for any significant period of time if they have to work to eat) and other people giving me their input on this topic.

And about calling special ladies "whores."

But thanks for playing. You might want to go back and actually read the posts now that you have given us your opinion about them. Especially the ones that note Nancy Reagan's prowress in bed, i.e., whoredom.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I wouldn't let your special lady know that you label those who get married "discouraged," term of art or not. I think she would rather you call her a whore (only in the heat of passion, of course, and as kind of a compliment about her sexual skills) than find out getting married is something you think the discouraged do.

Just a second, I'll ask her.