bob wald wrote:
> unemployments been that n more.you gotta think of all the people the gov
> doesnt count as unemployed,
> then you count all the under employed.....
> the USA is and has been running around 15%...n im being nice.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?-=3DDirtBag=A9?= <D...@ymail.net> wrote:
>bob wald wrote:
>> unemployments been that n more.you gotta think of all the people the gov
>> doesnt count as unemployed,
>> then you count all the under employed.....
>> the USA is and has been running around 15%...n im being nice.

>I am inclined to agree with you somewhat Bob.  I think more are
>unemployed than they actually count do to the way that they count.  But
>then these are always old numbers running behind.. rather than forward,

>I know three people who were laid off. Two of them are now back working
>for the same companies. Even school districts had some layoffs.  But
>right now they are working again.  My view is limited to this personal
>experiences but I think that the numbers 'freshness' may be in question.

>Where the numbers may be seriously flawed are in construction laborers,
>day workers, and the under the table workers.  Many people who are laid
>off have no unemployment insurance benefits.  The unskilled and day
>labors wages and spending add up.  Construction is full of these jobs.

> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?-=3DDirtBag=A9?= <D...@ymail.net> wrote:
> >bob wald wrote:
> >> unemployments been that n more.you gotta think of all the people the gov
> >> doesnt count as unemployed,
> >> then you count all the under employed.....
> >> the USA is and has been running around 15%...n im being nice.

> >I am inclined to agree with you somewhat Bob. I think more are
> >unemployed than they actually count do to the way that they count. But
> >then these are always old numbers running behind.. rather than forward,

> >I know three people who were laid off. Two of them are now back working
> >for the same companies. Even school districts had some layoffs. But
> >right now they are working again. My view is limited to this personal
> >experiences but I think that the numbers 'freshness' may be in question.

> >Where the numbers may be seriously flawed are in construction laborers,
> >day workers, and the under the table workers. Many people who are laid
> >off have no unemployment insurance benefits. The unskilled and day
> >labors wages and spending add up. Construction is full of these jobs.

> I posted a while ago about construction picking up around my area.
> It's picked up a lot more, even 4 major remodels going on within a
> block or so of my house. I consider a major remodel increasing the
> square footage by 30% to 200%. And these are good sized houses to
> begin with.

> I don't know for sure but these folks aren't dumb, so I expect they
> are financing primarily with prime rate home equity loans, although
> they probably could pay out of pocket. You know the people getting
> good loans are the ones that don't need them.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> unemployments been that n more.you gotta think of all the people the gov
> doesnt count as unemployed,
> then you count all the under employed.....
> the USA is and has been running around 15%...n im being nice.

> bob wald wrote:
>> unemployments been that n more.you gotta think of all the people the gov
>> doesnt count as unemployed,
>> then you count all the under employed.....
>> the USA is and has been running around 15%...n im being nice.

> I am inclined to agree with you somewhat Bob. I think more are
> unemployed than they actually count do to the way that they count. But
> then these are always old numbers running behind.. rather than forward,

> I know three people who were laid off. Two of them are now back working
> for the same companies. Even school districts had some layoffs. But
> right now they are working again. My view is limited to this personal
> experiences but I think that the numbers 'freshness' may be in question.

> Where the numbers may be seriously flawed are in construction laborers,
> day workers, and the under the table workers. Many people who are laid
> off have no unemployment insurance benefits. The unskilled and day
> labors wages and spending add up. Construction is full of these jobs.

Lawyerkill wrote:
> On Nov 7, 4:21 pm, d...@noospam.com (d.) wrote:
>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?-=3DDirtBag=A9?= <D...@ymail.net> wrote:
>>> bob wald wrote:
>>>> unemployments been that n more.you gotta think of all the people the gov
>>>> doesnt count as unemployed,
>>>> then you count all the under employed.....
>>>> the USA is and has been running around 15%...n im being nice.
>>> I am inclined to agree with you somewhat Bob. I think more are
>>> unemployed than they actually count do to the way that they count. But
>>> then these are always old numbers running behind.. rather than forward,
>>> I know three people who were laid off. Two of them are now back working
>>> for the same companies. Even school districts had some layoffs. But
>>> right now they are working again. My view is limited to this personal
>>> experiences but I think that the numbers 'freshness' may be in question.
>>> Where the numbers may be seriously flawed are in construction laborers,
>>> day workers, and the under the table workers. Many people who are laid
>>> off have no unemployment insurance benefits. The unskilled and day
>>> labors wages and spending add up. Construction is full of these jobs.
>> I posted a while ago about construction picking up around my area.
>> It's picked up a lot more, even 4 major remodels going on within a
>> block or so of my house. I consider a major remodel increasing the
>> square footage by 30% to 200%. And these are good sized houses to
>> begin with.

>> I don't know for sure but these folks aren't dumb, so I expect they
>> are financing primarily with prime rate home equity loans, although
>> they probably could pay out of pocket. You know the people getting
>> good loans are the ones that don't need them.- Hide quoted text -

>> - Show quoted text -

> WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - Despite reports that the U.S. economic
> stimulus plan has created or saved thousands of jobs, one area that
> should have been bolstered by the $787 billion recovery plan --
> construction -- continues to shed jobs, according to Labor Department
> data released on Friday.

> Lawyerkill wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 4:21 pm, d...@noospam.com (d.) wrote:
> >> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?-=3DDirtBag=A9?= <D...@ymail.net> wrote:
> >>> bob wald wrote:
> >>>> unemployments been that n more.you gotta think of all the people the gov
> >>>> doesnt count as unemployed,
> >>>> then you count all the under employed.....
> >>>> the USA is and has been running around 15%...n im being nice.
> >>> I am inclined to agree with you somewhat Bob. I think more are
> >>> unemployed than they actually count do to the way that they count. But
> >>> then these are always old numbers running behind.. rather than forward,
> >>> I know three people who were laid off. Two of them are now back working
> >>> for the same companies. Even school districts had some layoffs. But
> >>> right now they are working again. My view is limited to this personal
> >>> experiences but I think that the numbers 'freshness' may be in question.
> >>> Where the numbers may be seriously flawed are in construction laborers,
> >>> day workers, and the under the table workers. Many people who are laid
> >>> off have no unemployment insurance benefits. The unskilled and day
> >>> labors wages and spending add up. Construction is full of these jobs.
> >> I posted a while ago about construction picking up around my area.
> >> It's picked up a lot more, even 4 major remodels going on within a
> >> block or so of my house. I consider a major remodel increasing the
> >> square footage by 30% to 200%. And these are good sized houses to
> >> begin with.

> >> I don't know for sure but these folks aren't dumb, so I expect they
> >> are financing primarily with prime rate home equity loans, although
> >> they probably could pay out of pocket. You know the people getting
> >> good loans are the ones that don't need them.- Hide quoted text -

> >> - Show quoted text -

> > WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - Despite reports that the U.S. economic
> > stimulus plan has created or saved thousands of jobs, one area that
> > should have been bolstered by the $787 billion recovery plan --
> > construction -- continues to shed jobs, according to Labor Department
> > data released on Friday.

>   Am I missing something here?  Like where is Mr. Average unemployed Joe
> going to get a JOB?  Or does he even need one any more? !!

> THEY are actually talking about a JOBLESS RECOVERY.  What the hell are
> people going to use for money?  I guess we just print money to
> re-inflate the system.. Fu*k the dollar is fu*ked.. thats double fu*k'd.

> what you people dont see is this gov money used to hire people.is just
> taking from some people n giving to the other group.and after its
> finished...back to being unemployeed.
> or tax more n do it all over again....
> whatever....every1s poorer..in not unemployeed.