From: tcox@netcom.com (Thomas Cox)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Economy of USA
Keywords: total blinkered idiocy
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:59:40 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Distribution: ca
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Warning:  This post contains _Actual_ _Data_ [tm].  Be careful!  Gird
your prejudices tightly!  You don't want to go and get your
preconceptions rattled, do you?  [Hint: employment is looking up.] 



guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:

>>However, there's one point on your side: the 8% only represents the
>>numbers of people who _apply_for_unemployment_.  Two things gets people
>>off the application process; one, they find a job, two, they give up.

If someone is not looking for a job, then they should not be counted.
That is because they are not having the same effect on the economy
that "real" unemployed people have -- reducing the pressure for wage
inflation. 

[other random proof-by-assertion garbage deleted]

>I agree, the unemployment figures are really bogus.  

Of course you think that, Guido.  They don't support your emotions, so
the numbers must be wrong.

>Even if the
>figures were correct, they wouldn't indicate under-employment.

Oh, how cute!  "Even if the data contradicting me *is* accurate, I'm
still right."  Remind me to pull this one on you some time.

>I think that we would be able to get a much better picture of 
>what the employment situation is like if they published the ammounts
>of money being with-held and estimated taxpayments made.  These figures
>should be available every quarter and would give a much more 
>accurate picture of the nations economic health.

Why?  What on Earth would this tell you that would be of value?  I'm
not following your logic on this one.  Should all the economic gurus
out there be gathering this statistic you mention?  What would it tell
them? 

>Guido

On to the Actual Data.

It looks like the unemployment rate is rising at the same time as the
number of jobs is rising.  Yes, they're BOTH going up as of the last
few months, and total jobs have returned to 1990 levels.  Note that
losses in blue collar jobs (as manufacturing productivity increases)
have been matched by gains in white collar jobs.

Source:  _The Wall Street Journal_, front page, Tuesday 25-Aug-92.

"[Twin] rises in [both] employment and unemployment suggest the
white-collar work force is growing."

"The modestly improving, but churning, economy may be bringing more
white-collar workers into the job market as others are laid off, says
labor economist Audrey Freedman."

Period:		July '92   Feb '92  Aug '91   July '90
---------       --------   -------  -------   --------
WC Emp.	       ~68   m              66.9 m     67.3 m
WC Unemp	 3.4 m                          2.2 m

BC Emp.	        30.3 m     29.5 m              31.4 m
BC Unemp.        3.4 m     *3.5 m               2.4 m

+Tot Emp.      ~98   m                         98.7 m
+Tot Unemp.      6.8 m                          4.6 m

======================================================
[m = millions of people]

WC = White Collar  BC = Blue Collar
Emp. = Employment  Unemp. = Unemployment

~figure quoted as "almost" 68 million
*blue collar unemployment figure is for March '92
+I calculated these two myself; they aren't from the WSJ directly.

Cheers.
	-- Tom
-- 
Tom Cox      DoD #1776   '91 CB 750 Nighthawk   tcox@netcom.netcom.com
Yeah, I have a day job.  They don't believe me any more than you do.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7170 talk.politics.misc:42574