Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:37:12 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BtJp1n.M8y@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
> ...
>     ... if a worker loses his full time job and takes on two 
>     part time jobs that together provide 50% of his former income,
>     he than appears on two payrolls - and, according to the Labor 
>     Department, counts as two employed Americans.

	But that's the way it's always been.  It makes the numbers inaccurate
for judgin full-time equivalents, but it remains a good comparison tool.

        If you want accuracy, the unemployment (or rather employment) shoud be
measured as "full time equivalent" positions.  With positions without benefits
being worth only .7 of the same position with benefits.  (Or some other
mulitplier.)

        Then you can judge your economy by how many full-time jobs have been
created (or lost).

>     ... every piece of data generated by someone other than the Labor 
>     Department shows that the unemployment picture is becoming bleaker.
>     Among such data...The Help-Wanted Index indicating how many
>     jobs are available is down; the average number of permanent
>     staff cuts announced each month by U.S.corporations is up;
>     Dun & Bradstreet is reporting a sharp increase in business
>     failures, and the best independent survey of unemployment,
>     the one done by Sindlinger & Co. for the past 38 years,
>     shows that the ranks of the jobless have been growing 
>     steadily from 9.9% in May, to 10% in June, to 10.3% in 
>     the third week of July.

	July numbers have been thrown off by GM plant shut downs.  What those
numbers also aren't telling you is that GM makes up the difference between the
unemployment checks, and what they usually earn.  Plus those two weeks count
for attendance bonuses.  (Yes, they pay their workers for showing up.)

>         Yet, in complete contradictions to all of those trends,
>     the Labor Department tells us that in July the jobless
>     rate dipped, and the employment grew.  THE PUBLIC AND
>     PRIVATE NUMBERS ARE GOING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.

	Like I pointed out, the July numbers are skewed.  Also, in an expanding
population it is possible to both increase the number of new jobs and the
unemployment rate.  It means that new jobs aren't being created fast enough. 

	While there is no doubt that the economy is not growing as fast as
necessary to pull the economy back into "boom" mode, we still have not fallen
back into a recession (yet).

>     It is no wonder the Consumer Confidence Index is at all times
>     lows, but Mr.Bush keeps saying he does not understand why people
>     are so pessimistic about the economy.

	Business optimism has been growing all year.  Consumer confidence is
largely a PR game.

	So, although the economy is not doing very well, it's not as bad as
some people seem to believe.  Low inflation (relatively), low real estate
prices, low energy prices, etc. all indicate a good time to expand.  Especially
at the expense of larger companies that are forced to downsize (i.e., cut
layers of management) to become more competative.

	But you won't see that happen as long as the spectre of higher taxation
looms.  Higher taxes will definately kill new business, and make today's
consumer spending look good.
	
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!