News: "U.S. Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000"

From Yahoo! News (AP):

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

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.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 12:14:08 CDT 2004

> Anyone have any thoughts on the situation?

Yes.

Ken
Thu Apr 08 12:17:35 CDT 2004

"TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ux9yivYHEHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> From Yahoo! News (AP):
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/econo
> my_3
> or http://tinyurl.com/27j9c
>
> 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

John
Thu Apr 08 12:28:41 CDT 2004

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

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 12:27:12 CDT 2004

> 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.

Politician
Thu Apr 08 12:30:45 CDT 2004

"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):
> >
> >
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/econo
> > my_3
> > or http://tinyurl.com/27j9c
> >
> > 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

Ken
Thu Apr 08 12:37:40 CDT 2004

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@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

billyw
Thu Apr 08 12:46:59 CDT 2004

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

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@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.
>
>

Politician
Thu Apr 08 12:55:43 CDT 2004

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:OTHWsAZHEHA.3748@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@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

JaR
Thu Apr 08 12:58:53 CDT 2004

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

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 12:56:57 CDT 2004

> 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.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 12:57:32 CDT 2004

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

Who do you get your information from?

Ken
Thu Apr 08 13:02:06 CDT 2004

"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

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 13:04:24 CDT 2004

> 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.

TechGeekPro
Thu Apr 08 13:11:31 CDT 2004

The "economists" aren't unemployed.

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

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@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.
>
>

billyw
Thu Apr 08 13:11:32 CDT 2004

the government

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%234CE4LZHEHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > your trust in politicians worries me sometimes..
> > remember if the gov says it.. it's a lie..
>
> Who do you get your information from?
>
>

billyw
Thu Apr 08 13:13:45 CDT 2004

what economists are you listening to..
ah gov ones...

your country is running a deficit that would choke a horse.. and some one is
going to have to pay for it... remember this is an election year so anything
a politician says should be trusted even less..

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@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.
>
>

JaR
Thu Apr 08 13:28:48 CDT 2004

Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 10:55 AM:

> 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.
>

You ever actually _look_ at those emails? Mine have gone up
exponentially as well. However, the jobs are of the "Work at home" and
"Earn $5000.00 the first Week" variety.

YMMV

JaR

JaR
Thu Apr 08 13:33:08 CDT 2004

Ken Briscoe opined, On 4/8/04 11:02 AM:

> "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?
>

Chickens to the left, feathers to the right.

You may want to join the faster of the two lines.

The one for chickens seems to be just getting longer.

Underlying political meaning purely unintended.

JaR
Thu Apr 08 13:37:38 CDT 2004

Jtyc opined, On 4/8/04 11:04 AM:

> Interest rates do not rise that fast.

Pretty definite statement, that. Care to cite? Were you around in the
early '80s? Can you say "Double Digit"?

>
>
>>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,
>
>
> Adjusted Unemployment is at 5.7%.
>

I fixed your statement for you.

>
>>jobs are being created in addition?
>
>
> Yes.
>

Cite?

JaR

Ken
Thu Apr 08 13:41:50 CDT 2004

"JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
news:uRL2VcZHEHA.2924@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> You ever actually _look_ at those emails? Mine have gone up
> exponentially as well. However, the jobs are of the "Work at home" and
> "Earn $5000.00 the first Week" variety.
>
> YMMV

I don't get one from Dice, but the one I get from Monster has at least one
of those a week, a couple jobs needing MCSE for data entry, and a couple
with no possibility of relocation - local candidates only. Which wouldn't
normally be a problem, but there must be a Boston in India as well.

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

Politician
Thu Apr 08 13:42:38 CDT 2004

"JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
news:uRL2VcZHEHA.2924@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 10:55 AM:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> You ever actually _look_ at those emails? Mine have gone up
> exponentially as well. However, the jobs are of the "Work at home" and
> "Earn $5000.00 the first Week" variety.
>
> YMMV
>
> JaR

Yes, in fact I do. You don't get spammed with "Work at home" and "Earn
$5000.00 the first week" jobs when your agents search for words like
"Citrix" and "CCEA". If you don't believe me, go to Monster and Dice
yourself and do searches on those words yourself. A year ago, there was
barely anything.

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

TechGeekPro
Thu Apr 08 13:55:49 CDT 2004

Too bad this isn't microsoft.public.cert.exam.ccea.
How the h*** is Citrix applicable to THIS newsgroup?
Yeah, like I'd waste my time at Monster or Dice just to prove your
irrelevant point.

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

"Politician Spock" <rhammersmith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#AJMClZHEHA.2836@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
> news:uRL2VcZHEHA.2924@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 10:55 AM:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > You ever actually _look_ at those emails? Mine have gone up
> > exponentially as well. However, the jobs are of the "Work at home" and
> > "Earn $5000.00 the first Week" variety.
> >
> > YMMV
> >
> > JaR
>
> Yes, in fact I do. You don't get spammed with "Work at home" and "Earn
> $5000.00 the first week" jobs when your agents search for words like
> "Citrix" and "CCEA". If you don't believe me, go to Monster and Dice
> yourself and do searches on those words yourself. A year ago, there was
> barely anything.
>
> --
> Politician Spock
> Thug #24601
>
>

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:13:57 CDT 2004

Like I said, no one believes it and I do not have the capability of making
you.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:14:24 CDT 2004

> The "economists" aren't unemployed.

Quite true. But the unemployment rate is quite low.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:14:49 CDT 2004

> the government

I hate you.

Politician
Thu Apr 08 14:18:08 CDT 2004

"TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O$V5csZHEHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Too bad this isn't microsoft.public.cert.exam.ccea.
> How the h*** is Citrix applicable to THIS newsgroup?
> Yeah, like I'd waste my time at Monster or Dice just to prove your
> irrelevant point.
>


I guess you haven't learned yet that Microsoft certifications alone will get
you no where. You need to complement them with something else and find a
niche in order to get somewhere. Citrix is a fantastic complement to
Microsoft Certifications. You can think I am being arrogant, but what I give
is good advice. Here are some of the jobs from Dice using keywords "CCEA"
and "Citrix" (pay close attention to the rates). The Warner Bros job really
intrigues me!


Sr Technical Engineer (Citrix)

COMPANY: Warner Bros. Entertainment
SKILLS REQUIRED: Citrix
LOCATION: Burbank, CA
RATE: tbd
AREA: 818
LENGTH: full time
TERM: FULLTIME
SUMMARY: Warner Bros. seeks a Senior Technical Engineer for the
MIS-Technical Support department. Position acts as the technical liaison
between project management staff and Technical Support on assigned projects
intended to deploy to production. Responsible for en


Citrix Support Engineer

COMPANY: Genesis10
SKILLS REQUIRED: Citrix Support Engineer Active Directory CCEA MCSE SQL
Windows 2000 Server
LOCATION: Pasadena, CA
RATE: $60.00 - $62.00 per hour
AREA: 626
LENGTH: 9+ months
TERM: CON_W2 CON_IND
SUMMARY: Genesis10 is an IT Consulting, professional services company. We
are ranked number 9 in the Nation's top 100 Staffing Firms for 2002!! We
believe in a staff augmentation business model and offer our clients the
best business and technical resources availab


Sr. Citrix Engineer

COMPANY: Ballantyne Inc.
SKILLS REQUIRED: Citrix XPE metaframe and FR3
LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA
RATE: $55/hr - $65/hr
AREA: 949
LENGTH: 5 months
TERM: CON_W2 CON_CORP
SUMMARY: My client is looking for a Sr. Citrix contractor to work on a
server farm project. They will help out with various projects such as
conversion, upgrades, etc...

Person must have 3-5 years of Citrix experience (version XPE metaframe and
FR3). Must ha


--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

Neil
Thu Apr 08 14:19:10 CDT 2004

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:efB7D3ZHEHA.3240@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

>> the government
>
> I hate you.
>
>

naaa, that was funny....

--
Neil
"you'd do what, to who, for how many biscuits?"

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:19:13 CDT 2004

> Pretty definite statement, that. Care to cite? Were you around in the
> early '80s? Can you say "Double Digit"?

I'm not saying that they can't, or won't rise to that height. I'm saying
they don't rise so fast that people can't react to it. That's why I like
ARMs for a home loan right now. If rates start to climb, they won't climb
so fast that you can't adjust to it.

Vigo
Thu Apr 08 14:27:00 CDT 2004

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote in
news:#sqKjkZHEHA.1048@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

> I don't get one from Dice, but the one I get from Monster has at least
> one of those a week, a couple jobs needing MCSE for data entry, and a
> couple with no possibility of relocation - local candidates only.
> Which wouldn't normally be a problem, but there must be a Boston in
> India as well.

I have to wonder about the jobs I see offered in my area. There are some
that have been posted for two or three months. I wonder at the intentions
of the companies as to actually filling those positions. No doubt they've
gotten hundreds or even thousands of resumes, at with the quantity, and
quality, or people out of work, I'm dubious that they can't find someone to
fill the spots. It's important enough that they make the position
available, but they're so selective that they can't find anyone worthy in
two or three months of looking?

Call it tinfoil-hat if you will, but I think (as I've said in this forum
before) that they're nothing but placeholders for jobs to be outsourced,
kept open to satisfy any potential state or federal labor department
inquiry.

Dragon
Thu Apr 08 14:32:10 CDT 2004

If you replace a $50K job with the one for $5/h does not mean that economy
is better. These are just numbers. In fact, economy is pretty bad right now.
I can find more MCSE jobs in UK than in US. Have you looked at the exchange
rate between UK Pounds vs $? What about Euro vs. $? If economy is doing so
great then why do we have to pay more $ to buy the same thing we paid less
for in the past? And these are more $s that our newly found $5/h job does
not cover.

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23AiQ12ZHEHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > The "economists" aren't unemployed.
>
> Quite true. But the unemployment rate is quite low.
>
>

JaR
Thu Apr 08 14:38:05 CDT 2004

Jtyc opined, On 4/8/04 12:19 PM:

>>Pretty definite statement, that. Care to cite? Were you around in the
>>early '80s? Can you say "Double Digit"?
>
>
> I'm not saying that they can't, or won't rise to that height. I'm saying
> they don't rise so fast that people can't react to it. That's why I like
> ARMs for a home loan right now. If rates start to climb, they won't climb
> so fast that you can't adjust to it.
>
>
>
Exactly how will you 'react to it'? The rates go up 2 points, your home
will be unsaleable, you won't be able to refinance, ecept for a higher
rate. The only way an ARM makes _any_ sense is if you are in a market
with interest rates that are likely, at some point, to go _down_! You
are assuming that the rates will stay stable until you are ready to sell
your property. If you sell before they go up, you did well. But go up
they must, sooner or later. If you are stuck with a home after the rise,
bon chance, mon ami. I guarantee you that rates can climb faster than
you can bail out.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:37:31 CDT 2004

Again, good economy does not necessarily equate to "good in the tech
sector". The economy as a hole is doing well. IT, maybe not as well. I
dunno, I haven't been looking recently.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:38:07 CDT 2004

> naaa, that was funny....

I agree. I was trying to be funny as well in my response but it didn't
take.

I apologize.

billyw
Thu Apr 08 14:37:21 CDT 2004

would that be 1-0
or are you happier with 7-0


"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:efB7D3ZHEHA.3240@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > the government
>
> I hate you.
>
>

billyw
Thu Apr 08 14:38:00 CDT 2004

are you really the governators right hand man?
so to speak


"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esUel2ZHEHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Like I said, no one believes it and I do not have the capability of making
> you.
>
>

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:43:50 CDT 2004

> Exactly how will you 'react to it'?

Refinance.

> The rates go up 2 points,

Over what period are you talking about?

> The only way an ARM makes _any_ sense is if you are in a market
> with interest rates that are likely, at some point, to go _down_!

Why lock into a 30 year loan when rates are dropping?

> I guarantee you that rates can climb faster than you can bail out.

On what information do you base your guarantee?

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:46:46 CDT 2004

> are you really the governators right hand man?
> so to speak

No.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 14:47:22 CDT 2004

> would that be 1-0
> or are you happier with 7-0

Let's call it a touchback. 2-0.

JaR
Thu Apr 08 15:00:00 CDT 2004

Vigo Breadcrumbs opined, On 4/8/04 12:27 PM:

> I have to wonder about the jobs I see offered in my area. There are some
> that have been posted for two or three months. I wonder at the intentions
> of the companies as to actually filling those positions. No doubt they've
> gotten hundreds or even thousands of resumes, at with the quantity, and
> quality, or people out of work, I'm dubious that they can't find someone to
> fill the spots. It's important enough that they make the position
> available, but they're so selective that they can't find anyone worthy in
> two or three months of looking?
>
> Call it tinfoil-hat if you will, but I think (as I've said in this forum
> before) that they're nothing but placeholders for jobs to be outsourced,
> kept open to satisfy any potential state or federal labor department
> inquiry.
>

To be brief;

AOL

JaR
Succinct Thug

JaR
Thu Apr 08 15:02:32 CDT 2004

Jtyc opined, On 4/8/04 12:37 PM:

> Again, good economy does not necessarily equate to "good in the tech
> sector". The economy as a hole is doing well. IT, maybe not as well. I
> dunno, I haven't been looking recently.
>
>
>
hehheheh heheheh! He said a hole! heheh heheh!

Nobody but you keeps bringing up the tech sector as the sole economic
indicator.

billyw
Thu Apr 08 15:06:22 CDT 2004

i thought it was funny

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eIg4EEaHEHA.3128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > naaa, that was funny....
>
> I agree. I was trying to be funny as well in my response but it didn't
> take.
>
> I apologize.
>
>

billyw
Thu Apr 08 15:07:57 CDT 2004

ok thats fair enough..

<runs around doing the 1 finger in the air thing> no not that one...
"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O5SEQJaHEHA.360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > would that be 1-0
> > or are you happier with 7-0
>
> Let's call it a touchback. 2-0.
>
>
>

Ken
Thu Apr 08 15:14:08 CDT 2004

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eIg4EEaHEHA.3128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > naaa, that was funny....
>
> I agree. I was trying to be funny as well in my response but it didn't
> take.

I got the joke.

> I apologize.

Suck up.

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

Politician
Thu Apr 08 15:13:59 CDT 2004

"JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
news:%23szPtQaHEHA.3432@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> Nobody but you keeps bringing up the tech sector as the sole economic
> indicator.

For a sole economic indicator, the best choice is GDP, which by the way grew
4.1% the last three months of 2003 and is being projected to be 4.5% in the
first three months of 2004.

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

TechGeekPro
Thu Apr 08 15:16:00 CDT 2004

"The economy as a hole..."
Well said.

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

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eXKhvDaHEHA.3248@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Again, good economy does not necessarily equate to "good in the tech
> sector". The economy as a hole is doing well. IT, maybe not as well. I
> dunno, I haven't been looking recently.
>
>
>

JaR
Thu Apr 08 15:21:33 CDT 2004

Jtyc opined, On 4/8/04 12:43 PM:
>
> On what information do you base your guarantee?
>
>
OIC! And when I ask _you_ to cite your sources, that does not mean
anything.

I base my 'guarantee' on experience. I was around in the early eighties.
In fact, had my Real Estate license at the time. I saw homes on every
block that were purchased during the boom of the '70s that were
unsaleable. I saw forclosures on every front from people that were
unable to refinance at the higher rates. Every month people would say,
just hold on, the rates can't get much higher, we'll be okay! And guess
what? the rates got higher. Don't remember now where they topped out,
but it was in the teens! Not saying that it will be as bad this time,
but with the saturation and overvaluation of the housing market, the
dollar sinking against world currencies, and the mounting trade
imbalances, an adjustment is overdue!

JaR
Financial Thug

Neil
Thu Apr 08 15:31:42 CDT 2004

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote in news:ePvqHYaHEHA.2948
@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:

> "Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eIg4EEaHEHA.3128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > naaa, that was funny....
>>
>> I agree. I was trying to be funny as well in my response but it didn't
>> take.
>
> I got the joke.
>
>> I apologize.
>
> Suck up.
>

must have been screwed up in the English to Neil translation...

--
Neil
"you'd do what, to who, for how many biscuits?"

JaR
Thu Apr 08 15:42:16 CDT 2004

Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 1:13 PM:

> For a sole economic indicator, the best choice is GDP, which by the way grew
> 4.1% the last three months of 2003 and is being projected to be 4.5% in the
> first three months of 2004.
>

Probably. But not an accurate view of the total picture. for example,
Comcast Corp.'s $56 billion bid for Walt Disney Co. and the $41 billion
takeover of AT&T Wireless by Cingular Wireless reflect in the GNP to the
tune of $97 Billion that really does nothing. The net effest? Jobs lost
through restructuring.

Keep it in perspective.

JaR
Focused Thug

Ken
Thu Apr 08 15:41:54 CDT 2004

"Politician Spock" <rhammersmith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23OugFYaHEHA.3656@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> For a sole economic indicator, the best choice is GDP, which by the way
grew
> 4.1% the last three months of 2003 and is being projected to be 4.5% in
the
> first three months of 2004.

Are you sure it's a growing job base that's producing this? Maybe it's just
that people are working harder (hence, increasing output), for fear of
losing their job to outsourcing (or to their neighbor - it doesn't much
matter). I know I'm capable of working 4.1% harder than I already do. If I
couldn't work any harder, I wouldn't be hanging out here in mpce.mcse,
right?

I can't tell if I'm serious or kidding, so let's assume I'm serious - for
the sake of argument.

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

Politician
Thu Apr 08 15:58:56 CDT 2004

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:OZ1BpnaHEHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "Politician Spock" <rhammersmith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OugFYaHEHA.3656@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > For a sole economic indicator, the best choice is GDP, which by the way
> grew
> > 4.1% the last three months of 2003 and is being projected to be 4.5% in
> the
> > first three months of 2004.
>
> Are you sure it's a growing job base that's producing this? Maybe it's
just
> that people are working harder (hence, increasing output), for fear of
> losing their job to outsourcing (or to their neighbor - it doesn't much
> matter). I know I'm capable of working 4.1% harder than I already do. If I
> couldn't work any harder, I wouldn't be hanging out here in mpce.mcse,
> right?
>
> I can't tell if I'm serious or kidding, so let's assume I'm serious - for
> the sake of argument.
>


From U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
(http://data.bls.gov)

Series Id: LNS12000000Seasonal Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Sep 03 137644
Oct 03 138095
Nov 03 138533
Dec 03 138479
Jan 04 138566
Feb 04 138301
Mar 04 138298

Looks to me like the number of employed has gone up 654,000 in the last 6
months.

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

Vigo
Thu Apr 08 15:34:57 CDT 2004

JaR <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in
news:eFOiSPaHEHA.3432@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:

> Vigo Breadcrumbs opined, On 4/8/04 12:27 PM:
>
> To be brief;
>
> AOL

Huh?

Politician
Thu Apr 08 16:00:23 CDT 2004

"JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
news:OCQe6maHEHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 1:13 PM:
>
> > For a sole economic indicator, the best choice is GDP, which by the way
grew
> > 4.1% the last three months of 2003 and is being projected to be 4.5% in
the
> > first three months of 2004.
> >
>
> Probably. But not an accurate view of the total picture. for example,
> Comcast Corp.'s $56 billion bid for Walt Disney Co. and the $41 billion
> takeover of AT&T Wireless by Cingular Wireless reflect in the GNP to the
> tune of $97 Billion that really does nothing. The net effest? Jobs lost
> through restructuring.
>
> Keep it in perspective.
>


These actions occur in a good or bad economy. It's a wash when viewing
growth.

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 16:00:54 CDT 2004

> Nobody but you keeps bringing up the tech sector as the sole economic
> indicator.

I have never said the tech sector is doing well or not doing well. You are
thinking of Mr. Spock.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 16:02:15 CDT 2004

> "The economy as a hole..."
> Well said.

My apologies.

Jtyc
Thu Apr 08 16:08:40 CDT 2004

> OIC! And when I ask _you_ to cite your sources, that does not mean
> anything.

I will come up with the sources again if needs be. Last time I did that
however, no one believed a word of it.

TechGeekPro
Thu Apr 08 16:24:05 CDT 2004

I'm listening.

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

"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ub4pr2aHEHA.3880@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > OIC! And when I ask _you_ to cite your sources, that does not mean
> > anything.
>
> I will come up with the sources again if needs be. Last time I did that
> however, no one believed a word of it.
>
>

Vigo
Thu Apr 08 16:57:37 CDT 2004

"Politician Spock" <rhammersmith@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:#$93MxaHEHA.3820@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:


> Looks to me like the number of employed has gone up 654,000 in the
> last 6 months.

Yeahbut...

It's generally accepted by both conservative and liberal economists that
the U.S. economy needs to add about 175000 jobs per month to keep up
with the increasing working age population (increasing through
population growth and immigration), i.e. to keep the unemployment rate
from going up.

As long as the gap between the number of people looking for work and
available jobs continues to grow, the positive effect of added jobs gets
muted by the substantial downward pressure on wages.

The 308000 jobs added last month is the first time since January, 2001,
I believe that the U.S. exceeded the break-even number. At that rate,
it will be 2008 before we make up the defecit. It's also notable that
the unemployment rate increased 0.1% even though we added more than a
break-even number of jobs.

So yes, more jobs is good, but then again, so is losing your legs
compared to losing your head.

JaR
Thu Apr 08 17:50:42 CDT 2004

Vigo Breadcrumbs opined, On 4/8/04 1:34 PM:

> JaR <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in
> news:eFOiSPaHEHA.3432@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>
>
>>Vigo Breadcrumbs opined, On 4/8/04 12:27 PM:
>>
>>To be brief;
>>
>>AOL
>
>
> Huh?

From the AOLers' habit of replying to a post with a cascade of 'me
too's. Ergo; AOL = 'me too!'

Furrfu. And we thought you were well read!

JaR
Informative Thug

JaR
Thu Apr 08 18:03:11 CDT 2004

Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 2:00 PM:
>>
>>Keep it in perspective.
>>
>
>
>
> These actions occur in a good or bad economy. It's a wash when viewing
> growth.
>

Not neccesarily a wash. The effect is unpredictable. All I intended to
point out is, that the GNP would be a more accurate measure of the
welfare of the economy if these sorts of transactions were not counted.
They can skew the GNP dramatically, without affecting the overall health
of things. Growth MUST be measured in relation to the earning power of
the average individual, or it is meaningless. What good the effect of a
corporation that has a 10% increase in profits, but a net loss in
domestic employment? GNP up, but economy down, right? It sure hasn't
help with taxes paid to the government. 60% of all companies have paid
NO taxes since 1989!*

*source;http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8370885.htm?1c

or;

http://ripoff.notlong.com

JaR
Taxed Thug

JaR
Thu Apr 08 18:16:06 CDT 2004

Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 1:58 PM:

> From U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
> (http://data.bls.gov)
>
> Series Id: LNS12000000Seasonal Adjusted
> Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
> Labor force status: Employed
> Type of data: Number in thousands
> Age: 16 years and over
>
> Sep 03 137644
> Oct 03 138095
> Nov 03 138533
> Dec 03 138479
> Jan 04 138566
> Feb 04 138301
> Mar 04 138298
>
> Looks to me like the number of employed has gone up 654,000 in the last 6
> months.
>

No 654,000 jobs have been added. The US population grows, however, at
the rate of about 3.2 million per yer.* So, by your figures, over that
six month period, the US LOST around 946,000 jobs. Doesn't sound like
recovery to me!

Source;

http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm

Laura
Fri Apr 09 00:13:06 CDT 2004

circa Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:06:48 -0400, in
microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, TechGeekPro (%username%@yahoo.com)
said,
> 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)
>
>
There seem to be a few more jobs out there these days than in the
past, but the pay is horrendous.

There's my snap summary. :-)

Laura
--
I am Dyslexia of Borg,
Your ass will be laminated.

billyw
Fri Apr 09 05:06:27 CDT 2004

if the source has anything to do with a government agency i wont belive it..
BUT, if it is from a winno or some other upstanding member of the community
i might, just might believe it


"Jtyc" <jtyc_mcngp@spamblockerbitch!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ub4pr2aHEHA.3880@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > OIC! And when I ask _you_ to cite your sources, that does not mean
> > anything.
>
> I will come up with the sources again if needs be. Last time I did that
> however, no one believed a word of it.
>
>

Politician
Fri Apr 09 08:07:44 CDT 2004

"JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
news:uQlP38bHEHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 1:58 PM:
>
> > From U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
> > (http://data.bls.gov)
> >
> > Series Id: LNS12000000Seasonal Adjusted
> > Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
> > Labor force status: Employed
> > Type of data: Number in thousands
> > Age: 16 years and over
> >
> > Sep 03 137644
> > Oct 03 138095
> > Nov 03 138533
> > Dec 03 138479
> > Jan 04 138566
> > Feb 04 138301
> > Mar 04 138298
> >
> > Looks to me like the number of employed has gone up 654,000 in the last
6
> > months.
> >
>
> No 654,000 jobs have been added. The US population grows, however, at
> the rate of about 3.2 million per yer.* So, by your figures, over that
> six month period, the US LOST around 946,000 jobs. Doesn't sound like
> recovery to me!
>
> Source;
>
> http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm

This is a semantically argument, which I *HATE* to participate in, but in
this case it is an important one.

"LOST" is an incredibly misleading term to describe the current issue of
jobs. In January 2001 there were 137,790,000 jobs in the US. In March 2004
there were 138,298,000. No jobs were lost, in fact 508,000 jobs have been
FOUND under President Bush's term DESPITE a recession. But you, the Kerry
campaign, and the media sources that lean left present 2.3 million "LOST"
jobs under president Bush.

To be more accurate: In January 2001 there were 143,787,000 people in the US
civilian labor force. In March 2004 there were 146,650,000. That is an
increase of 2,863,000 people to the work force. Subtract the 508,000 found
jobs under president Bush from the increase of 2,863,000 to the work force
and you have 2,355,000 (2.3 million) more people looking for work today than
in January 2001. But far be it from those who want Bush out of the
Whitehouse to present it as it really is. It's much more effective to say
2.3 million jobs were "lost".

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601

Politician
Fri Apr 09 08:10:51 CDT 2004

"JaR" <plentenospam@nospamsofthome.net> wrote in message
news:%23QGwp1bHEHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Politician Spock opined, On 4/8/04 2:00 PM:
> >>
> >>Keep it in perspective.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > These actions occur in a good or bad economy. It's a wash when viewing
> > growth.
> >
>
> Not neccesarily a wash. The effect is unpredictable. All I intended to
> point out is, that the GNP would be a more accurate measure of the
> welfare of the economy if these sorts of transactions were not counted.
> They can skew the GNP dramatically, without affecting the overall health
> of things. Growth MUST be measured in relation to the earning power of
> the average individual, or it is meaningless. What good the effect of a
> corporation that has a 10% increase in profits, but a net loss in
> domestic employment? GNP up, but economy down, right? It sure hasn't
> help with taxes paid to the government. 60% of all companies have paid
> NO taxes since 1989!*
>
>
*source;http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8370885.htm?1
c
>
> or;
>
> http://ripoff.notlong.com
>
> JaR
> Taxed Thug

All data can be argued that it doesn't accurately reflect what it
represents. Eventually you get down to an argument that has no data to
support it and one says "the economy is bad because I know it is bad". This
seems to be the case for people who hate Bush, and their minds won't be
changed despite the data that shows the economy growing.

--
Politician Spock
Thug #24601