's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

The bad news for the Dems just keeps coming.(39 posts)

The bad news for the Dems just keeps coming.94Nole
Aug 7, 2003 5:03 AM
Productivity Soars, Jobless Claims Drop

By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - America's business productivity soared in the second quarter of 2003 and new claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a six-month low last week, a double dose of good news as the economy tries to get back to full throttle.

Both the productivity and jobless claims figures were better than economists were expecting. They were forecasting productivity to grow at a 4 percent pace in the second quarter and for jobless claims to rise.
Unemployment figures are false metricpitt83
Aug 7, 2003 5:17 AM
AFter 12 months or the "disgusted un-employed"(those who take a worthless job managing a Pizza Hut) no longer count. Therefore, in a long downturn, these people fall off the roles and numbers seem to go up. Problem is: The economy is stagnant, not growing as the numbers suggest. Statistics can fit whatever model you want them to.

PS: Keep your mitts off my conference!
Lies, damn lies and statistics,TJeanloz
Aug 7, 2003 5:27 AM
While it is true that raw unemployment data does not encapsulate those people who are actually employed, albeit "underemployed", and also those who are not working but are no longer looking for work (they are considered out of the labor force), there really is no better way to count the unemployed.

However, the aforementioned statistic was NEW unemployment claims, which suffers from neither of the two above problems, and is a realistic indicator of how many full-time employees lost their jobs last month. The economy is growing by almost any metric we can measure, usually we would use real GDP, and real GDP has shown growth for several months now. Not 1990s level growth, but growth.
actually, there are other ways of counting unemployment.dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 5:59 AM
you could, for example, count those of working age NOT WORKING for any reason. That would be a good way of looking at things, given that in an economy those that work support those that don't via social services (which are a drag on productivity). The more people not working, the worse off the economy is. The fewer people not working, the better off it is.

Back in the early 80s, IIRC, when we had 10% unemployment, we had a not-working rate of 17.something%. Today, with a 6.2% unemployment rate, our not-working rate is 17.something%. By those numbers it's pretty bad out there.

Talk to people out there and you will hear things are NOT GOOD. And when the consumer sees their neighbor out of work, they will be cautious. Throw in rising interest rates and the end of the refinancing/home improvement/housing boom that have been keeping the economy afloat, and you can make a case that the numbers are bad for republicans.

GDP is a good number to use as a metric, sure. I have never heard a single person talk about GDP in a "kitchen table" context though. And when the question is how people will vote, that is the context that counts.

Actually, nothing that happens with the economy now will matter for either party. What the conditions are like a year from now will have an effect, but not now.
Of course, but they aren't good,TJeanloz
Aug 7, 2003 6:06 AM
If you were to count those not working, our unemployement rate would be ridiculously, and falsely, high. Stay at home moms would be unemployed, retirees would be unemployed, most children would be unemployed - that would be a big number. And even counting that group would miss the "underemployed" who are, actually, employed. This "not working" rate you give isn't tracked by any study that I'm aware of - I'm not even sure how they would get that number.

What it comes down to is that you have to define the workforce somehow, and I think it's reasonable to exclude people who aren't looking for work from the workforce.

The economy is not in great shape - but it is definitely improving, and will likely continue to improve through November 2004.
A link on the calculationsdr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 7:54 AM

You can listen or watch the television segment, or read the text.

Note that I refered to WORKING AGE people, not retired, not children. Stay at home moms would count, but I think it is safe to assume that there are fewer of those every year, or at least not more. The above link discusses the numbers, mostly with economists as the sources. The big numbers that are higher than in the past are prisoners, people on disability, and discouraged workers.

The claim being made is that the current situation is much closer to the early 80's in terms of economic impact on the street than the official unemployment rate shows.
A link on the calculationsTJeanloz
Aug 7, 2003 7:58 AM
What's "working age"? All four of my grandparents still work, and they range in age from 80 to 87.

Do you seriously want to count the prison population as unemployed? Do you seriously want to count people on disability as unemployed?

Discouraged workers could be counted, except that it's hard to get that data, given sampling techniques currently available.
I KNOW you did not read that and reply in 4 minutes!dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 8:08 AM
The link explains the logic of prisoners (who are a drain on the economy, and are unlikely to get jobs when the get out) and disability (for example more ppl applying because companies don't provide "loyalty" jobs like they used to).

If you want to discuss it, at least do the courtesy of reading the article so you can discuss it in an INFORMED way.

If you just want to spout off in an uniformed way, feel free. I'll just add you to the list.
No, I didn'tTJeanloz
Aug 7, 2003 2:36 PM
But considering I wrote my senior thesis on producing a more accurate unemployment figure, I'm pretty well versed on the topic. If you want to call me uniformed, that's cool, but I do have a background in labor economics, and I'm pretty sure I can speak to it in an informed way. At least as informed as a PBS reporter.

The logic of prisoners being "unlikely" to get jobs when they get out, while correct, is flawed because they are not out. I might accept it as reasonable if they calculated the prison population eligible for release in the next six months (or some similar near-term exit), and added them - but somebody who will be there for a while is not in the workforce, and will not be in the workforce for some time.

The issue of disability was also flawed at the core, as those people who were on disability were looking for an alternative to the workforce, not a place in it. If somebody is disabled, they are not in the workforce.

The basic fact, which I spent more than 100 pages demonstrating, is that while we could arrive at a slightly more accurate unemployment figure, it would be biased in other ways, and cost a lot more to produce.
I was unaware of your background on the topic.dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 3:03 PM
Please note though, that if you had read the link, the story quotes economists. It's their information you would be dealing with, not a "reporter".

Also, I have seen plenty of senior theses that are crap. Dissertations too for that matter. Arguments from authority hold little weight on-line, and none with me. I have a Ph.D. Big deal! I can spout bs just like anyone else (and frequently do).

As I said in the reply to live steam below (feel free to correct my errors there if you want) the upshot of the article is that while the unemployment numbers are much lower now than 80-81, the not working numbers are a bit higher. I agree with the "discouraged worker" numbers.

The disability numbers seem fishy to me.

The prison numbers, and some of the assumptions made, I don't like either.

However, I see the central argument that in terms of MACRO economic activity, the NOT WORKING rate is a valid measure of a drag on the economy. Workers produce, non-workers don't.

Also, it would seem to be a bit more statistically reliable, given that the working/not working categories exhaust all possible adults... while the unemployed/employed numbers used by the government leave some categories of people (mainly "discouraged" workers) out.

The issue of lower reliability in the "unemployment" numbers due to variance in discouraged workers is something I would be happy to hear you address.

NOTE: I have MAD statistical skills, so feel free to get all technical on my ass if you want. :)
The discouraged worker,TJeanloz
Aug 8, 2003 4:56 AM
The topic of the discouraged worker is really central to the calculation of any unemployment figure - and in almost all circles, it is questioned and probed. The question is what differentiates a person from being discouraged and just being lazy (or having better things to do). Stay at home moms fit the same description as "discouraged workers"; or better, graduate students. The real question is how do you define a "discouraged worker", and how do you count them? Most people who want to inflate the unemployment figure want to say that a discouraged worker is somebody who would work if the right job, at the right pay came along. But the problem with that is that EVERYBODY would work if the right job at the right pay came along. How would you define a "discouraged worker" and what question would the University of Michigan pollsters ask when they make phone calls?

I'm also not entirely sure that I agree with your assertion that people not in the traditional workforce are a drain on the economy. They contribute to the economy in non-traditional ways, but contribute nonetheless. If this group of people truely does nothing but sit on the couch and eat cheetos, it's not good for the economy, but it's really no different than the millions of Americans who are retired. Is the economy losing some potential? Yes. Is it a measure of "drag" on the economy, maybe if you measure GDP as total possible output.

Lastly, the "unemployment" number is not really intended to be so much of an actual metric as an indicator of trend, because the actual number of people unemployed is not really important (note that other economies that are similarly strong have vastly different rates). But we use it as a relative measure across time, and here, a constant definition is the most important factor.
the questions they ask, RE disc workers, are:dr hoo
Aug 8, 2003 5:33 AM
At least from the article, iirc (not going back to re-read it)

Are you employed?

(If no)

Have you looked for work in the past week?

I assume they exclude stay at home parents and students as such surveys normally do.

"They contribute to the economy in non-traditional ways, but contribute nonetheless. "

Some do contribute in NON PAID ways, like homemakers. Some don't, like prisoners and disabled.

"'s really no different than the millions of Americans who are retired."

Yes, it is different. This discussion and all the numbers are refering to adults of working age. The assumption is that children and the elderly will not work. Some do of course. For you to start widening the population of the discussion is a rhetorical move that distracts from the point being discussed.

"Lastly, the "unemployment" number is not really intended to be so much of an actual metric as an indicator of trend."

Yes, but if it misses an important PART of the employment trend then it is not doing it's job in tracking that trend. The definition can be consistant, but flawed in a biased (non-random) way. Such is the claim of the article. The flaws are not the SAME over time, but larger in the current economic conditions compared with the 80-81 time frame. A central assumption of all statistical estimation techniques is the error is RANDOM. If that assumption is flawed, the model is, to use a technical term, crap.
Just curiousLive Steam
Aug 8, 2003 5:55 AM
Where is this shown or proven in the article? "The flaws are not the SAME over time, but larger in the current economic conditions compared with the 80-81 time frame." I do not see anything that verifies this with hard numbers. It is just an assertion made by the author without providing any hard numbers.
Those are the questions they ask everybody,TJeanloz
Aug 8, 2003 6:02 AM
The poll questions go something like:

Did you work in the last week? (No)

If yes, the survey ends here.

Did you look for work last week? (No)

If no, you are counted as "out of the workforce"; if yes, you are counted as unemployed.

Stay at home parents and students are excluded on the basis that they didn't look for work last week - which is the same as "discouraged workers". What question would you ask to filter the discouraged workers from the graduate students?

You pick up on my point very well that a lot of these discouraged workers contribute in an unpaid manner, but we estimate "household production" all the time in labor economics to value the labor of those who are working, without receiving a wage. But there's also the other group of those who are paid, but not really working, i.e. crack dealers - which is probably a reasonable population in one group they discuss (inner city youth). Crack dealers, like it or not, contribute to the economy.

I guess my bottom line is that the article didn't present anything more than anecdotal evidence that there are actually more discouraged workers now than there were in 1980, or 1992, and it didn't do enough to discuss the implications of these discouraged workers on the economy, which I believe are minimal. We are talking about a relatively small number of poor-productivity workers (the biggest group of "discouraged workers" was inner-city youth).
I think they ask "Occupation?"dr hoo
Aug 8, 2003 9:00 AM
The answer to occupation by homemakers or students as "homemaker" or "student". If the answer is "unemployed" they ask follow up questions. That is how I would sequence the questions at least.

"...and it didn't do enough to discuss the implications of these discouraged workers on the economy,"

I think the issue was more the effect of the economy on the discouraged workers.

You are right, someone would have to do more research on the claims in the article for this discussion to go any further. That someone won't be me, or you or Steam. I generally like News Hour stories because they spend 10-15 minutes on a topic instead of 1-2 minutes, but there is only so much that can be done in that time frame. Digging through economics journals on such a nice summer day vs. going for a ride? I know which will maximize my utility.
I am sure I'm on "your list" :O)Live Steam
Aug 7, 2003 1:56 PM
But I'll comment just briefly anyway :O) Were any of the people he cited in his story ever counted? If not, and I am sure they never were, then the unemployment numbers during any President's tenure, were never correct at any time - even during the rosy times of low unemployment.

In my opinion, and I am no economist - heck I have trouble reading a balance sheet - this is a very suspect way of looking at the data. There are many people that will be included, as per the default definition of unemployed by the study, that never worked a day in their life and never intend to. So yes they are unemployed, but they never lost a job in the first place. How about drug dealers? Are they counted among the "employed"? Do lifers in jail get counted too? How about the people making license plates in jail or the guys working in the mess and laundry? Do they get counted among the employed? What about the homeless drunk that sleeps in a box. Is he unemployed or just taking a sabbatical? Or maybe he's just waiting for that right opportunity to come along.

I think this whole thing is silly. I think it's a disingenuous attempt by some leftist media person to paint the current economic picture the way he sees it fit into his political agenda.
Not yet, but give it time.dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 2:44 PM
One way to look at the numbers is to use the same method all the time and then track changes in the numbers. Doing that, today's unemployment rate is 4% lower than the early 80s. That sounds good.

Change scores are nice, and I use them all the time in research to look for trends and causal effects. The idea is that there may be PROBLEMS with how we measure the numbers, but those problems will be the same across time. Any change in the numbers will not be due to the error. So the errors are there for every president's term, correct.

The article is saying that there is a problem with doing that. In essence, it is saying there are variables that are explicitly excluded from the unemployment calculations, but those excluded variables are NOT consistant over time, and that they DO have an effect on people's lives and the economy.

Clearly one of these is "discouraged workers". There are more now, and that does not show up in the official numbers. They might just be taking a week or a month off from looking, but when they are called in the surveys and asked "Did you look for work this week" they will answer no, so they are not counted as unemployed. Your homeless person living in a box will not be called in the phone survey.

You should also be careful about switching your language between "employed" and "unemployed". There can be people that are not employed, but are not unemployed either by the unemployment figure of the government! However, the categories of working/notworking hit everyone of working age. They fit into one or the other category. For statisical purposes, it's much better to have variables that cover ALL the cases, rather than just SOME.

I am a bit leary of the other arguments in the article. The disability argument seems fishy, but I can't get a good counter argument going with the numbers. The prison thing, well, there are a heck of a lot more people in prison, and they WOULD be unemployed mostly if they were out. But I am not sure about some of the "estimates" based on these numbers. IF I cared enough, I would look up the academic writing of the economists mentioned in the article and see what the details of their models are.

Bottom line, the economists are using the same methods to count the "not working" at both time points. The claim is that while unemployment rate now is much lower than in 80-81, the not-working rate is a bit higher. I would like to see a graph of the unemployment vs. not-working rates over time, and see how they track in GOOD times as well as bad, but of course they do not provide that. Maybe the "not working" rate is ALWAYS high. For example, when the economy is good, then more parents can stay at home with the kids.

I did like the article in that it put a different view on the topic that we usually get, and delved into the facts behind the numbers we usually hear reported in 30 seconds on the evening news.

Even lefty economists aren't all that leftist, and they DO use data that is not "made up" but comes from somewhere. Show the economists (not journalists) quoted in the story made stuff up, and you can ruin their entire careers. Show their calculations are in error, and you can do harm to their reputations that will last for years.

Given your last line, and past posts, you are clearly a knee jerk reactionary. But at least you (probably) read the article.
I read it :O)Live Steam
Aug 7, 2003 3:15 PM
Knee jerk reactionary? Who me? :O)

How do we know the "discouraged worker numbers are higher now" if they never were counted before? That is suspect in and of itself. The same goes for the "not working" category. If you never counted them before, you cannot determine they are higher now. Also, in my estimation, and I know it's not scientific, but I believe there are more "unemployable" people than ever before. How does that figure into the scheme of things? My definition of "unemployable" is someone without skill or training, are not literate and therefore are not trainable and have no other redeemable characteristics. Shouldn't we start counting people that never intend to work an honest job so they can be eliminated from the books? This argument is being made now because someone somewhere decided it was politically expedient to do so.
good for you!dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 3:45 PM
You'd be surprised what kind of data is out there. People have been doing surveys on this stuff for years and years, so I don't doubt there is historical data on discouraged workers, average length between jobs, percent of adults in the workforce, etc. Just because the offical government statistics don't use those numbers does not mean they do not exist.

The article doesn't provide that level of detail, and I don't care enough about this to track down the sources for each of these variables. If you want to, find the publications of the economists listed in the link and start reading!

"Shouldn't we start counting people that never intend to work an honest job so they can be eliminated from the books?"

It depends on what you are trying to measure. I the more I think about this, the more I think that in terms of measuring macro economic activity, the working/not working adults is a better measure of the labor force than the current unemployment rate.

Take the unemployable you mention. If there are more of them, then that is a drag on the economy. Ditto with those who never intended to work. (I've never met one, every kid I ever asked mentioned a job they wanted to do when they grew up... firefighter, cowboy, pro athlete, etc.) But I will agree there are people who never intend to work for the REST of their lives. If these people end up on welfare, or in jail, or on the street, they are a drag on the economy. If there are more of them it's a bigger drag.

Those working are a boost to the economy. The more of them, the better. If 10% are "not working" that is better than 20%, no?

Makes sense to me.

In terms of political expediency, if the GOVERNMENT was changing the numbers, then I would be VERY interested in just how they do it. Changing the way statistics are calculated is one of the sneakiest ways of grabbing or cutting resources in the modern state. It almost never gets press, but can involve billions of dollars.
Thanks!Live Steam
Aug 7, 2003 6:46 PM
They compare employment numbers form era to era, but fail to make "adjustments" for these same variables that they deem are important, in the other eras. They only insert these numbers into today's statistics and then say they should be higher. I would imagine that all things being equal, the variables they say are not disseminated by the DOL today had a similar drag on the economy in previous eras. With all things being relative they could then be discounted.

Personally I think we should be more concerned as to why there are more unemployable people in our society today than there was previously. Why are there more illiterate people than before? I know I am not backing those statements up with hard data, but I would be willing to bet they are correct. Besides the authors of the article made some blanket statement too :O)

Look, I agree that more people working is a good thing and less is bad. Yes the unemployable are a drag on the economy, etc .... However the article was written in a way that makes it appear to me that the "variables" they claim are not being counted in the data are being deliberately hidden and that this is a new practice by the government. This is the way the DOL has been compiling the data for years. Am I reading too much into it? Does the interviewer not want my impression to be that the numbers the government is now putting out on employment are "deliberately" misleading? Maybe your right. I am knee jerk reactionary :O)
I didn't see that slant.dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 7:06 PM
Actually, the article states explicitly why the story was done, which is rare. Someone made the claim that unemployment was REALLY worse than the numbers made it out to be. The news hour followed up on the claim to see if that could really be the case. So while one economist might have an agenda (dunno about that one way or another), the story started being written with a skeptical eye.

As to why there are more unemployables, I would point to education. The numbers can be staggering. In my state, 20 years ago, the state university system made up about 15% of the budget, and the prison system about 2%. Now the uni system is about 7% and the prison is 7.4%. A similar story can be told all over.

Guess which one got cut in the budget this year? In fact, the one that got cut made up for 30% of the budget cuts for the entire state.

Hint, they aren't cutting back on orange jump suits.

At least our k-12 works. Of course, over that same 20 year span it went from 20% to around 40% of the budget, so it damn well better! So our kids can read and write, but they don't have the skills needed for good jobs.

Money alone does not explain it, but when kids enter a school system that is broken, they come out the other end with poor skills. California is a great example of that. So is NYC, or most any urban center for that matter.

Education is good.
Why are they broken?Live Steam
Aug 8, 2003 5:41 AM
I don't disagree that it isn't, but I would think with Mr. & Mrs. Education in office for the past eight years, there should have been a positive effect on the system. The system continued to degrade even under them. Just a thought, and I have no way of proving it, but maybe it's not the education system alone that needs fixing. Maybe people need to work on their social responsibility skills. Way too many kids are being left to their own devices. Many parents of kids living in the inner cities in this country do not take an interest in their kid's education or lives, for that matter. Many parents are also kids, so what can one expect from them? We as a society have come to accept this as a fact of life and have not demanded change from certain communities. We have not demanded that certain communities learn to help themselves. We just throw more good money after the bad, on programs destined to fail. We do this in the name of political correctness and some form of righteousness that I find to be ineffectual and irresponsible.

This social tolerance we believe is so virtuous, may actually be detrimental and undermining our society. My wife works in the NYC school system in a rather rough neighborhood. She works with kids that require special attention for various reasons. I cannot believe the stories she comes home with. These poor kids are being neglected by their parents and families and not the system. How does the system correct that? No amount of money will ever be able to deal with that kind of problem and it is self perpetuating. The simple reason the budgets for the prison systems is increasing, as you stated, is our society is producing more criminals and less qualified students and workers. Our prisons are failing too. We are supposed to reform these criminals, but they system is too lax from the tolerance we foist upon it. Very pessimistic, I know, but also very true.

So yes the system is broken and there doesn't appear to be any answers from either side of the aisle to fix it. As for the original subject of the thread - "Someone made the claim that unemployment was REALLY worse than the numbers made it out to be." Isn't this exactly my point? The claim and the reaction to it appear to be disingenuous. This is not a new issue. However the author makes it appear that it is being investigated for the first time and that possibly, this administration is somehow fluffing the numbers up for appearances.
Interest Rates rising???? Sure they are rising...94Nole
Aug 7, 2003 6:29 AM
from 40-50 year lows. What direction would they be expecting to be moving? It wouldn't take too much more move down without requiring the Fed to pay borrowers for using the money.

The economy is coming back. I agree that it is not back yet, but it is heading in the right direction and that is what spells trouble for the Dems, who would sell their souls to prevent it. The American worker be damned, as long as they get their power back.

Business cycles. Always happened, always will.
Interest Rates rising???? Sure they are rising...dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 7:43 AM
I would expect them to rise, and you are right, they are still low. However, even a slight rise now slows refinancing activity greatly. That kicks a large support out from the economic growth. Add in that much of the improvement in the numbers is due to war spending, and the political effects are not certain.

Business cycle huh? Consider computer programers. When jobs go from the USA (60k a year average salary) to Bangalor India (6k a year) that is great for profits, but BAD for people in the USA. So far as I know, the people with new jobs in India are not going to vote in the next election, but the out of work programer will. LOTS of jobs in tech fields have gone to Bangalor. Business =/= voters.

The data is mixed, and things change in the course of a year. There is a lot of anger out there, and anyone making a prediction about how something happening now will effect the election over a year out hasn't been paying attention to recent history. Popular war presidents have fallen to unknown hicks, and incumbents have been voted out when the economy is flying high. Ask Bush Sr. and Gore.
doc, I am deeply disappointedmoneyman
Aug 7, 2003 7:23 AM
"Talk to people out there and you will hear things are NOT GOOD"

"I have never heard a single person talk about GDP in a "kitchen table" context though"

Anecdotal evidence in a serious economic discussion? How much validity is in that? Maybe you should stick to sociology.

$$ (always helpful)
this is NOT an economic discussion.dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 7:31 AM
It is a political discussion. It is about voting and voter perceptions. Voter psychology. Sometimes that is linked to reality, sometimes it is not.
Lies, damn lies and statistics,Alpedhuez55
Aug 7, 2003 6:18 AM
YEs there are certain sectors that are down but I have noticed in Boston that things are improving. Companies are hiring again. Many comapanies, including mine, had hiring freezes on. Most of them have been lifted.

There are going to be underemployed people in any economy. I work with several people who were unemployed for a while and were forced to take a lower paying job. Most had worked in the tech sector.

THe fact is, the economy is improving. Some people will try to spin it or say it is not a real indicator. But the job market is better than it has been in a while.

Mike Y,
Bad news.......Arnold is on the wayMR_GRUMPY
Aug 7, 2003 5:40 AM
and stands for everything that the right believes in.
Aug 7, 2003 7:20 AM
Just heard on NPR today that Arnold is a social moderate (whatever that means) and is pro choice. That is definitely NOT something the "right" believes in.

he's also pro gun control.dr hoo
Aug 7, 2003 7:56 AM
But if i was still in CA i would have to vote for Angelyn!
but since then, bad employment news has come outrufus
Aug 7, 2003 5:59 AM
so one day we get good reports, and the next day we get bad ones. i don't think anyone's gonna start feeling comfortable about this economy until we get a few months of consistently promising data going.

also, much of that productivity growth and business orders was due to the large influx of spending by the government on military and defense items due to the iraq war. given this administration's bent for constant war in the future, maybe that will continue, but i wouldn't want to base my entire economy on it.

but just as i advocate, government spending on targeted sectors that encourage business production and job creation are the ways to spur an economy, not handing out huge tax cuts to the wealthiest people. i think this economic report proves that fact pretty well.
it did say "new" claims droppedColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2003 6:10 AM
I don't see how anyone can say that we are in the midst of an economic boom by any means right now.
No one made the claim "economic boom"! nmLive Steam
Aug 7, 2003 3:38 PM
re:Not here in Californiajrm
Aug 7, 2003 3:32 PM
The states a shambles.
re:Not here in CaliforniaLive Steam
Aug 7, 2003 3:40 PM
Information I hear from a friend is that RE is up almost 30% in many areas. Who is buying those homes if the local economy is in the crapper?
As it deserves to be...TJeanloz
Aug 8, 2003 5:07 AM
After the tech excesses, I can say that many people in the rest of the country are happy to see Californians suffer. We had to deal with 5 years of "Californians are the smartest people in the world, the future is the internet, and we own it" bullsh!t. I'd say those of us in the old-economy are quite content that that card house came crashing down.
You need us. We don't need you. (nm)czardonic
Aug 8, 2003 9:39 AM
hahaha You people are a riot!CARBON110
Aug 8, 2003 10:59 AM
Very interesting and informative from the first few posts for sure. Felt like I was reading Plato for a second there when the discussion got to abstract concepts of who to consider in statistics. Of course then we had to ruin it all by personal slander and overly broad statements. Live Steam, I highly recommend you question the Right as much as you question the Left :OD The last 2 posts were the best though HAHA
With a economy ranked 7th in the WORLDjrm
Aug 8, 2003 5:00 PM