I love these broad, sweeping and general statements. I'm not sure you can, but I would be interested in seeing you back some of them up with...oh I don't know. Facts? People are making far less than they did in the 95-01 period? And the expected number was 200k, not 300k. At least that's what I read everywhere (Bloomberg, IFR, 4cast).
RE: true unemployment rate; IMO, there is no such thing as there is no way of knowing how many people want work. For example, my wife does not work but if the right job came along she'd take. She is not seeking a job, but if one fell in her lap that was to her liking, she'd take it. So how should she be counted in the labor force. FYI-according to BLS, the total employed is 142,449 million, so if YOU know what the total labor force is then you are able to calculate the "true" rate. DS
Sir, I do not appreciate being "quoted" as using words that I would never actually use. Specifically, I refer to "blah blah blah." I find this to be misrepresentative and disrespectful. You may disagree with me as you please, but being misquoted is not something that I tolerate very well. Therefore, our exchanges have come to an end.
I concur. Even the most positive indicators, among the ones I used, show that weâre still not better off than we were in 2002. A majority of the jobs created during the 2002-2004 period were part-time jobs and many failed to recognize that for the simple reason that the Payroll Survey doesnât distinguish between full-time and part-time jobs!!! The Household Survey makes that distinction and indicates that 2005 has been a very good year so far, but there's still a lot of catching up to do.