Kids! - Patterico has some analysis on why the unemployment rate jumped and how the minimum wage is (partially) to blame, complete with a personal anecdote. (HT: Wizbang)
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Thus far in 2008, monthly job losses in manufacturing have averaged 41,000, as compared with -22,000 a month in 2007 and -14,000 a month in 2006. But let's focus on the real problem: teens trying to get their first Baskin-Robbins hats.
As Patterico sagely explains, "the number jumped because of a surge of new people who came into the job market looking for, but not finding work." He knows where to look, too: "How about high school and college students coming into the job market for the summer."
Inexplicably and amazingly, the unemployment rate DIDN'T go up last May, despite all those new jobseekers who skew the numbers every year. Not to mention the way the unemployment rate stayed the same from April to May 2006. Or went down in May 2005. Or stayed the same in May 2004. (Guess nobody graduated in 2007, 2006, 2005, or 2004.)
It's got to be that extra 70 cents an hour. Those greedy punks saw those 14 nickels, and they went berserk and destroyed the Bush success story!
Well, here's a blurb from a CNN story: "John Silvia, chief economist with Wachovia, said the unemployment rate was distorted by a big jump in teenage unemployment in May, to 18.7% from 15.4%, as the school year ended and teenagers started searching for jobs."
Yes, I saw the same quote. But why would "the unemployment rate [be] distorted by a big jump in teenage unemployment in May" only once in the last five years? Is there something unique about 2008's month of May?
For that matter, since when would high school students hit the unemployment rolls, thereby skewing the stats, a month before school ends? Are schools letting out in April these days?
BTW, Silvia was the Republicans' chief economist for the Joint Economic Committee. Silvia was previously quoted explaining how, despite appearances, the U.S. economy was NOT heading into recession. And Silvia is currently an official advisor to the John McCain campaign.
But I'm sure he's totally sincere and guileless when he talks about jobs at the food court, and their deceptive role in making the Bush numbers look bad.
Well, maybe it has something to do with the minimum wage increase, in the aforementioned Patterico post. Try to keep up.
Also, I know it's a talking point of the Democrats and the media (redundant, I know) but can we have *one* quarter of negative growth before we throw around the "recession" meme?
Already mentioned, and mocked, in the first post. Try to keep up with your own message board.
And keep keeping up your cheerleading for a sliding economy, which can withstand anything except a 70-cent pay hike for sherbet scoopers. Live, Tinkerbell! LIVE!
I especially enjoyed listening to NPR's gleeful prediction that this is no mere recession, but more likely a full-blown economic depression on a par with 1929.
I especially like blogs like this, which seize upon each indicator of good economic news as yet another vindication of Bush's policies, while skipping merrily across all negative data.
Until the data becomes so huge that it can't be ignored. In which case the bad news is a fluke, or a falsehood, or irrelevant, or a one-time technicality, or something rotten that the liberals pulled. (I haven't visited NRO.com lately, is the Bush boom economy still "The Greatest Story Never Told"?)
Can't wait to hear why $5.00 gas is actually Bill Clinton's fault.
"Can't wait to hear why $5.00 gas is actually Bill Clinton's fault."
Pfffft. That's easy.
It's Bill Clintons (and every other liberal wack-o's) fault, because they have done everything possible to prevent expanding our energy options, while simultaneously carping about energy independence.
Can't exploit new oil resources. Can't build a new refinery. Can't expand nuclear power. Can't build new power plants. Can't develop shale.
Oh, I know! Strap this solar cell to your ass and put this propeller-beanie-hat on your head. See? Energy independence!
Let us leave our anonymous kook to fight the 25-year-old ghost of Jimmy Carter.
Patterico and Silvia and Viking all imply that the minimum wage is to blame for the crummy unemployment numbers. That being the case, I'd just like to know why the minimum wage went up in 2007 WITHOUT a corresponding jump in the unemployment rate.
Yeah, whatever you do, curious, stay off topic. The 25 year-old ghost of Jimmy Carter has been resurected in the form of a "wind-fall profits" tax by your party.
Guess what this brilliant solution will do to oil prices?
No, blunder-brain. Carter becomes the topic when the party of failed ideas begins resurrecting his failed policies: -Iranian appeasement. -Windfall taxes on oil companies. -Nationalizing oil companies. -Raising taxes during an economic downturn.
This question may have been buried by the above silliness: Patterico and Silvia and Viking all imply that the minimum wage is to blame for the crummy unemployment numbers. That being the case, I'd just like to know why the minimum wage went up in 2007 WITHOUT a corresponding jump in the unemployment rate.
Because businesses don't instantaneously respond to the jack-assery whims of the democratic party, that's why. They employ REAL people and have ACTUAL families to support, so guess what? They actually TRY to make a go of it. They do the BEST they can.
But invariably, the weight of backwards ecomonic policy eventually forces them to LAY PEOPLE OFF and STOP HIRING.
The democratic party has no interest in collective prosperity. They just want everyone to be equally worthless. See??? Now everything's fair!
Sadly, that guy's explanation makes as much sense as "an unexpectedly large wave of April graduates abusing the second minimum wage hike in 2008, after sitting out the first one in 2007."
Nope, no real answer to that question. Just the usual faithful, parroting the talking point du jour. In this case, the "graduating students" talking point that's being sold by A PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM HIRED BY THE UNITED STATES LABOR DEPARTMENT TO SOFTEN THE BLOW OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS. Because that's what your tax dollars are for.
21 comments:
Thus far in 2008, monthly job losses in manufacturing have averaged 41,000, as compared with -22,000 a month in 2007 and -14,000 a month in 2006. But let's focus on the real problem: teens trying to get their first Baskin-Robbins hats.
As Patterico sagely explains, "the number jumped because of a surge of new people who came into the job market looking for, but not finding work." He knows where to look, too: "How about high school and college students coming into the job market for the summer."
Inexplicably and amazingly, the unemployment rate DIDN'T go up last May, despite all those new jobseekers who skew the numbers every year. Not to mention the way the unemployment rate stayed the same from April to May 2006. Or went down in May 2005. Or stayed the same in May 2004. (Guess nobody graduated in 2007, 2006, 2005, or 2004.)
It's got to be that extra 70 cents an hour. Those greedy punks saw those 14 nickels, and they went berserk and destroyed the Bush success story!
Well, here's a blurb from a CNN story: "John Silvia, chief economist with Wachovia, said the unemployment rate was distorted by a big jump in teenage unemployment in May, to 18.7% from 15.4%, as the school year ended and teenagers started searching for jobs."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/jobs_may/?postversion=2008060612
Yes, I saw the same quote. But why would "the unemployment rate [be] distorted by a big jump in teenage unemployment in May" only once in the last five years? Is there something unique about 2008's month of May?
For that matter, since when would high school students hit the unemployment rolls, thereby skewing the stats, a month before school ends? Are schools letting out in April these days?
BTW, Silvia was the Republicans' chief economist for the Joint Economic Committee. Silvia was previously quoted explaining how, despite appearances, the U.S. economy was NOT heading into recession. And Silvia is currently an official advisor to the John McCain campaign.
But I'm sure he's totally sincere and guileless when he talks about jobs at the food court, and their deceptive role in making the Bush numbers look bad.
Well, maybe it has something to do with the minimum wage increase, in the aforementioned Patterico post. Try to keep up.
Also, I know it's a talking point of the Democrats and the media (redundant, I know) but can we have *one* quarter of negative growth before we throw around the "recession" meme?
Already mentioned, and mocked, in the first post. Try to keep up with your own message board.
And keep keeping up your cheerleading for a sliding economy, which can withstand anything except a 70-cent pay hike for sherbet scoopers. Live, Tinkerbell! LIVE!
I especially enjoyed listening to NPR's gleeful prediction that this is no mere recession, but more likely a full-blown economic depression on a par with 1929.
Sorry about that darn economic growth, NPR.
I especially like blogs like this, which seize upon each indicator of good economic news as yet another vindication of Bush's policies, while skipping merrily across all negative data.
Until the data becomes so huge that it can't be ignored. In which case the bad news is a fluke, or a falsehood, or irrelevant, or a one-time technicality, or something rotten that the liberals pulled. (I haven't visited NRO.com lately, is the Bush boom economy still "The Greatest Story Never Told"?)
Can't wait to hear why $5.00 gas is actually Bill Clinton's fault.
"Can't wait to hear why $5.00 gas is actually Bill Clinton's fault."
Pfffft. That's easy.
It's Bill Clintons (and every other liberal wack-o's) fault, because they have done everything possible to prevent expanding our energy options, while simultaneously carping about energy independence.
Can't exploit new oil resources.
Can't build a new refinery.
Can't expand nuclear power.
Can't build new power plants.
Can't develop shale.
Oh, I know! Strap this solar cell to your ass and put this propeller-beanie-hat on your head. See? Energy independence!
And there's always this piece of recently resurected logic from the Carter days. "Let's just conserve our way back to $2.00 a gallon".
You came back 20 minutes later just for THAT?
Yeah, I was listening to some pathetic Carter apologist on the radio try to explain why supply & demand doesn't apply. Just thought I'd share it.
It wasn't you, was it?
Let us leave our anonymous kook to fight the 25-year-old ghost of Jimmy Carter.
Patterico and Silvia and Viking all imply that the minimum wage is to blame for the crummy unemployment numbers. That being the case, I'd just like to know why the minimum wage went up in 2007 WITHOUT a corresponding jump in the unemployment rate.
Yeah, whatever you do, curious, stay off topic. The 25 year-old ghost of Jimmy Carter has been resurected in the form of a "wind-fall profits" tax by your party.
Guess what this brilliant solution will do to oil prices?
For some sad, weird people, Jimmy Carter is ALWAYS the topic.
No, blunder-brain. Carter becomes the topic when the party of failed ideas begins resurrecting his failed policies:
-Iranian appeasement.
-Windfall taxes on oil companies.
-Nationalizing oil companies.
-Raising taxes during an economic downturn.
This question may have been buried by the above silliness:
Patterico and Silvia and Viking all imply that the minimum wage is to blame for the crummy unemployment numbers. That being the case, I'd just like to know why the minimum wage went up in 2007 WITHOUT a corresponding jump in the unemployment rate.
Nothing, huh?
Bueller?
Because businesses don't instantaneously respond to the jack-assery whims of the democratic party, that's why. They employ REAL people and have ACTUAL families to support, so guess what? They actually TRY to make a go of it. They do the BEST they can.
But invariably, the weight of backwards ecomonic policy eventually forces them to LAY PEOPLE OFF and STOP HIRING.
The democratic party has no interest in collective prosperity. They just want everyone to be equally worthless. See??? Now everything's fair!
Econ 101: it's not just for breakfast anymore.
Sadly, that guy's explanation makes as much sense as "an unexpectedly large wave of April graduates abusing the second minimum wage hike in 2008, after sitting out the first one in 2007."
Well, almost as much sense.
Nope, no real answer to that question. Just the usual faithful, parroting the talking point du jour. In this case, the "graduating students" talking point that's being sold by A PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM HIRED BY THE UNITED STATES LABOR DEPARTMENT TO SOFTEN THE BLOW OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS. Because that's what your tax dollars are for.
The inflation rate just took a big bounce up, too. Darn those high school students!
Post a Comment