Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Obama is going to fix the economy, end the war in Iraq, and remove the Disney characters from It's A Small World.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And that is why he has my backing...though I think he has a better chance of achieving the first two.
Originally Posted By Westsider So, dshyates, from the story you linked to it would appear that you feel that suddenly the unemployment numbers are accurate? So that means the current January estimate of 7.6% unemployment is using Obama's new math and that is accurate? Even if it is revised upward or downward a few months from now, as unemployment and other national stats generally are as the final data comes in and is digested, we are currently getting the unfiltered truth? If that is the case and Obama has suddenly set things straight, even though he was only President for the last 9 days of January, then I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with Obama's officially christened national figure of 7.6%? Or are you saying Obama's math still hasn't been factored in to the figure that the NY Times has said was already revised? Not trying to be argumentative, just curious. For the record, I voted for the guy. But I am a bit wary of those who seem to feel he will heal the sick, stop the oceans from rising, get the Iranians to send Israel a muffin basket, and convince Detroit to make hot cars that run on wheatgrass. But maybe in the last two weeks he did something different with the unemployment stats?
Originally Posted By dshyates First off, this "You guys think Obama is the Messaih" crap is really annoying. I voted for him because he simply was not GOP or Clinton. It that simple. Not because he is the next coming of Christ. I think the revised numbers are Obama being pragmatic and getting a realistic look at what he has to deal with, not to demonize the Bush Administration. He has already expressed that he wants to move on and get busy taking care of the business o the American people. I WISH he would take the previous administration to task. Alas he will not. I think Obama has heaps more integrity than the Bush administration, but thats not a very high bar to top. But regarding the Jan. figures. They will still be adjusted as they figure out how many of the job losses were seasonal as oppose to permanent. As said in the article, since the retailers DIDN'T gear up with seasonal employees this year, the numbers will most likely go up. But once again, I, in no way think Obama is the second coming. I have concerns with the size of the stimulus bill, and I haven't heard ANYTHING about how we are going to pay for this. If he gives in the the Republicans dream of cutting capital gains and corporate tax rates then I will REALLY be scared. Those are worthless as economic stimulus in deep recession times. If he cuts capital gains while spending $800B he has lost his freakin' mind. Citting corporate tax rates is a great way to continue an already growing economy, but a disasterous plan to create jobs during a recession. Bottomline NO company is going to hire people to sit in the lounge, seeing as they already have boatloads of inventory just sitting there. But to answer your question, I think at this point, I believe they are trying to get a realistic view of the problem. But I also wouldn't be surprised, as the next election cycle approaches, if Obama starts fudging with the numbers. Bush did it. Clinton did it.
Originally Posted By dshyates Oh, and we should jump this conversation over to WE, as most here read the parks threads to get away from this stuff. The last thing folks want to read about while escaping into a titch of Disney Magic is worldwide recession. For some right now reading about the magic is as close as they are going to get for a while, and our injecting the real world here is akin to building a Disney Park without a berm. Total buzzkill.
Originally Posted By alexbook Westsider: It's not just the Bush administration. The government's been messing around with the unemployment and GDP numbers for decades. Financial publications like Barron's have called them on it. The problem is that the full story is too complicated to fit into ten-second soundbites on the evening news.
Originally Posted By alexbook dshyates: Oops. You're right, and I apologize for adding to the situation.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I am the one who originally brought up the issue of umemployment numbers being a LIE in ths country. And as much as I detest the former President (and wish he and his administration were brought up on charges for their many crimes to show other nations that ALL Amercicans play by the same rules and we aren't a nation of hypocrites), the numbers are not a partisan issue at all. The same deal happened under Clinton. It isn't new. It's just much worse now because the economy is so much worse and there are so many more people out of work. It's very simple. Once someone's unemployment benefits run out, they stop counting in the equation (whether they have found work or not ... and how many people are finding jobs today?). Many people (self-employed, contract work etc ...) can't qualify for unemployment to begin with, so they don't count either. What about the vastly underemployed? The types who had full-time professional jobs, but now work 20 hours a week at Macy's or Starbucks? Are they really employed? No. Not in any meaningful way. People really miss the point on this one if they think any number the government gives is even close to accurate. If they say it's seven percent ... realistically it's between 2-4 times that likely.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Just so we're on the same page, here's how unemployment is calculated in this country. There is a phone survey of about 60,000 households per month. After establishing eligibility (over 16, in the labor force, etc.), the survey begins. The surveyor asks, "Are you currently employed?" Yes, the surveyor says thank you, hangs up. Employed. No, the surveyor asks, "Have you searched for a job in the last month?" Yes, the surveyor says thank you, hangs up. Unemployed. No, the surveyor says thank you, hangs up. Not in labor force. Discouraged workers are not counted in the unemployment statistics. There are other ways of determining unemployment but that is the gist of the most basic method.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^That's not the case. It's calculated based upon those who claim jobless benefits. Very simple.
Originally Posted By alexbook You're both right. The federal government actually calculates multiple different unemployment numbers, some using surveys and some using actual counts of those claiming unemployment benefits. The media, in reporting on it, tends to talk about "the unemployment rate," but actually there are multiple rates. It's not simple at all.
Originally Posted By alexbook Oh, yes, and there are also the "seasonal adjustments," which means that the numbers they get from both the survey method and the calculation method are further massaged based on typical annual trends.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones In addition to the household survey there's also the establishment survey. The Bureau of Labor Statistics survey about 160,000 business establishments about the number of workers they have on their payrolls. They two stats are not identical because the establishment survey can count people twice, that is, those who are working two jobs and appear on two different payrolls. Also, a person who is self-employed is not counted because he does not show up on any business' payroll, where i the household survey he is counted. The household and the establishment surveys can vary widely in the short-run. From November 2001 to August 2003 the establishment survey showed a decline in employment of 1 million while the household survey showed an increase of 1.4 million. In the long-run the two stats tend to be positively correlated. There are problems in the way we calculate statistics like unemployment, but they are also the best methods we have. It would be impractical to survey everybody in America every month.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "^^That's not the case. It's calculated based upon those who claim jobless benefits. Very simple." <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm</a> "Where do the statistics come from? Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey."
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Also, while underemployment is definitely an issue, collecting data on such a phenomenon is impractical. "Is there a measure of underemployment? Because of the difficulty of developing an objective set of criteria which could be readily used in a monthly household survey, no official government statistics are available on the total number of persons who might be viewed as underemployed. Even if many or most could be identified, it would still be difficult to quantify the loss to the economy of such underemployment." Whether your underemployed or not is largely a question of personal opinion. There is definitely underemployment going on, but how do we quantify it?
Originally Posted By alakay I know starabilias in anaheim closed in Jan 2009 and starabilias in florida was set to close at the end of July 2009 has the florida store closed all ready?
Originally Posted By Love4BTM Can you believe it is gone? Now it’s a kitson kids….i heard talk that rainforest café is not doing well either. but that might b a rumor.
