T1B

You wanted to talk about "facts". Where are yours?
You said 15%. Where are your numbers, puppybreath?

IndyFrisco wrote:Aside from fantasyland...

If you are a top performer and get laid off, you should have no problem getting a job. Will you have to "start over" or "swallow your pride and take a lesser job"? Maybe. I could find an equivalent job within a month. I may have to make a move, which I would prefer not to, but I could do it. Anyone can. Those who say they can't just won't.

Best Attitude Award.


RACK

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote: More like 9.4% as of today, but hey, don't let the facts get in YOUR way.

And it was 247,000 last month.

Rightttt...the gubmint says it is this number, so you just purse your lips on the "facts" contained on head of the gubmint dick and continue your power sucking until the gubmint drives another load of gubmint "facts" jizz down your pie hole.

The numbers spewed by the guvmint is only those that are on or have signed up for guvmint cheese.

You both are being dishonest.

Mikey because I know for a fact that depending on how the numbers work he will cry about so-called discouraged workers that are out of work yet not counted among the unemployed because of the methods used to count the unemployed.

Derron because while he'll rely on official unemployment data when it suits him, he'll question the validity of that data when it doesn't suit him.

Look, the DoL unemployment numbers are legit in that they measure precisely what they're intended to measure. The problem is the dishonest hacks will ignore the well-known and obvious shortcomings of the counting methods to argue x or z or whatever.

Fact - unemployment is higher despite Obama's incessant promises and it's higher than the CBO projected it would be without any government "stimulus" action.

That might be true. But it still doesn't take away from the promise to "create and save" x number of jobs.

Remember, as a politician he's supposed to be slippery. Nobody every said anything about the "net" impact any of this will have employment.

It's really a promise with no reasonable metric. It'd be like counting the grains of sand brought in and brought out by the tide.

JMak wrote:

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote: More like 9.4% as of today, but hey, don't let the facts get in YOUR way.

And it was 247,000 last month.

Rightttt...the gubmint says it is this number, so you just purse your lips on the "facts" contained on head of the gubmint dick and continue your power sucking until the gubmint drives another load of gubmint "facts" jizz down your pie hole.

The numbers spewed by the guvmint is only those that are on or have signed up for guvmint cheese.

You both are being dishonest.

Mikey because I know for a fact that depending on how the numbers work he will cry about so-called discouraged workers that are out of work yet not counted among the unemployed because of the methods used to count the unemployed.

Derron because while he'll rely on official unemployment data when it suits him, he'll question the validity of that data when it doesn't suit him.

Look, the DoL unemployment numbers are legit in that they measure precisely what they're intended to measure. The problem is the dishonest hacks will ignore the well-known and obvious shortcomings of the counting methods to argue x or z or whatever.

Fact - unemployment is higher despite Obama's incessant promises and it's higher than the CBO projected it would be without any government "stimulus" action.

I never claimed that the numbers represent anything other than what they represent. Obviously the "true" unemployment percentage (whatever that is) is higher than 9.4%, but there's really no way to determine it because it depends entirely on how you define it.

Your relilance on the CBO projection as a benchmark is no more valid than using the monthly DoL unemployment numbers to make any claim about the current situation. The conditions used in making that projection change constantly, making it a moving target as well. There's no possible way to evaluate the validity of that projection.

Fact - the "official" unemployment rate is lower this month than what the projections estimated a month ago. Job losses in July were lower than the projections predicted.

Mikey wrote:Your relilance on the CBO projection as a benchmark is no more valid than using the monthly DoL unemployment numbers to make any claim about the current situation. The conditions used in making that projection change constantly, making it a moving target as well. There's no possible way to evaluate the validity of that projection.

Sure there is. The CBO uses static analysis, i.e., based on current policies not changing and assuming x economic factors = projection. WTF is wrong with that? Certainly, it cannot 100% accurate because the US economy and the US Congress are not static. However, it provides a useful to tool to say this is where we are and based on these assumptions where we may be in x months/years. However, change this policy(ies) and you may get y in months/years. It's a valid exercise in economic forecasting.

Citing the DoL unemployment numbers to describe the current employment situation is valid. The sampling methods are valid. The data is what it is. The problem is that people will deliberately abuse the data.

Fact - the "official" unemployment rate is lower this month than what the projections estimated a month ago. Job losses in July were lower than the projections predicted.

And that seems like good news. Lets hope the rate of job loss is slowing.

:D

JMak wrote:And that seems like good news. Lets hope the rate of job loss is slowing.

A slower rate of job loss could just mean, there are no more jobs to lose.

Tom In VA wrote::D

JMak wrote:And that seems like good news. Lets hope the rate of job loss is slowing.

A slower rate of job loss could just mean, there are no more jobs to lose.

I'm still working. How about you?

Mikey wrote: I'm still working. How about you?

For now, contract is up in Oct. But prospects are good. Living right outside of Rome (D.C.), being a citizen, working in IT, prospects are better for me than some folks in other areas of the country.

Mikey wrote:You wanted to talk about "facts". Where are yours?
You said 15%. Where are your numbers, puppybreath?

Look democrap goop gobler, no one is divulging the real numbers because it would be mud on a muddy face. too bad your not in touch with what is going on, but from my business observations, on an average, my customers are 25 to 30% off on business. Most of the have cut their staffing in half.

So, there are you stats, fagmo

Ah. So you and your decidedly small sample size speaks for the whole country? Hasty generalizations much?

Derron and Mikey: Um... How 'bout, "you're both right?"

The official unemployment rate hit 9.4% in May—already as high as the peak unemployment rates in all but the 1982 recession, the worst since World War II. And topping the 1982 recession’s peak rate of 10.8% is now distinctly possible. The current downturn has pushed up unemployment rates by more than any previous postwar recession

The BLS calculates the official unemployment rate, U-3, as the number of unemployed as a percentage of the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force consists of employed workers plus the officially unemployed, those without jobs who are available to work and have looked for a job in the last 4 weeks.

Accounting for the large number of marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons raises the count of unemployed to 24.0 million workers for May 2009. Those numbers push up the U-6 unemployment rate to 15.9% or a seasonally adjusted rate of 16.4%.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23144.htm

Regardless, it sucks.

JMak wrote:

Derron because while he'll rely on official unemployment data when it suits him, he'll question the validity of that data when it doesn't suit him.

Bwwwaaaahhaaa...wrongo fuck boy. I would not reply on ANY gubmint data for any kind of rationale or decision making whether it supports or contradicts my position. . The gubmint could not put the true data together even if they had the means.

Gubmint tends to slant things the way they want them, and for thinking people to assume that their data and position is solid and truthful is ludicrous.

The last post tends to support my position, and based upon the continuing job losses, the actual numbers will probably increase. But we will never know the actual numbers, because there are none.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Derron wrote:The employees I recently laid off had no fault at all...the market segment we worked in completely collapsed..and we had to contract the company to ride it out hopefully..It was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do as an employer, and it was not their fault..mine to some extent...more a victim of the times..

You really are the fucking idiot you make yourself out to be. It is their fault because they worked a drone job to support a family and one day management busted a cap into them ?

it is their fault because a segment of the economy contracted and their business and job went away ? Riggghtttt..you fucking idiot...

Derron,

Did you have to lay off EVERY employee? If not, I assume you kept the best workers, no? Conclusion: Be a top performer.

You still believe in the Easter Bunny, don't you?

IndyFrisco wrote: Derron,

Did you have to lay off EVERY employee? If not, I assume you kept the best workers, no? Conclusion: Be a top performer.

Every one is laid off right now. I hope we can bring a couple back, but that depends on if people start spending again on our specialty type construction work, which is mostly of the damn gubmint type and appears to be a non essential expenditure right now.

Everyone I still had on was a top performer, and made close to $ 20 per hour with benefits. We ran pretty lean and accomplished more per man than comparative companies, and have no debt. If you had anyone still on who was not producing at the highest level, then its your fault.

By your theory, a company that goes under because of the economy contained no top performers ?

Derron wrote:By your theory, a company that goes under because of the economy contained no top performers ?

No, my theory was expounded upon later:

If you are a top performer and get laid off, you should have no problem getting a job. Will you have to "start over" or "swallow your pride and take a lesser job"? Maybe. I could find an equivalent job within a month. I may have to make a move, which I would prefer not to, but I could do it. Anyone can. Those who say they can't just won't.

True story: My best friend hired onto Texas Instruments when he graduated. I was already working there in Dallas at the time. He was a top performer, and he got laid off during a RIF in 2002 during the 9/11 and Enron mess. He was a new hire (less than 1 year employment), and that group was targeted in the RIF. Took him 3 weeks to find another job. He now reports to the CEO of the company he moved to, a multi-billion $ company. This is a guy who paid for his own college, worked his way through college and had plenty of student loans piled up when all was said and done. First job out of the chute and he got shit on. He wiped it off and made something of himself. Anyone can do it. But are they willing to make the sacrifices?

mvscal wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Anyone can do it. But are they willing to make the sacrifices?

They are the sacrifice, dolt.

Soooo....you're saying that dude working the register at 7-11 can't better himself? I know you don't believe that. Nor do you believe it is someone else's fault that is his ceiling. He puts that on himself.

IndyFrisco wrote:

mvscal wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Anyone can do it. But are they willing to make the sacrifices?

They are the sacrifice, dolt.

Soooo....you're saying that dude working the register at 7-11 can't better himself? I know you don't believe that. Nor do you believe it is someone else's fault that is his ceiling. He puts that on himself.

So do you believe that everyone has the aptitude to become a nuclear physicist?

Diego in Seattle wrote: So do you believe that everyone has the aptitude to become a nuclear physicist?

Not sure how it applies here but I always heard that "you are what you eat".

Diego in Seattle wrote:So do you believe that everyone has the aptitude to become a nuclear physicist?

I think everyone, sans the mentally disabled, has the aptitude to become as successful in whatever field they choose that fits their abilities. For every "excuse" you can give me for someone who is "where they are in life", and that not being a good place, I could probably google you an example of someone who had a similar story and got themselves out of it.

Hell, I went to school wanting to be an accountant because I thought that was practical. Deep down, I wanted to go into culinary arts, but didn't think it was practical for a career. I ended up with an IT degree, and am very successful. Yeah, I still have the dream to own/operate a restaurant, but it still isn't practical for me right now. I got 2 kids (1 and 3), will have 3 by the end of next year, and a mortgage. Unlike the many dipshits who get in over their heads, I am P-L-A-N-N-I-N-G what I want to do next and will not put anything into motion until I am sure I will either succeed or still be comfortable should I fail. That planning thing...not so bad an idea. Those who live paycheck to paycheck, planning=budgeting. Try that too.

IndyFrisco wrote:That planning thing...not so bad an idea. Those who live paycheck to paycheck, planning=budgeting. Try that too.

Planning/budgeting doesn't make money appear from out of thin air, dipshit. You think that everyone living paycheck to paycheck is being wasteful with their money?

I highly suggest that you read Nickel & Dimed: On Not Getting By In America. Planning & budgeting, while helpful, only goes so far.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Planning/budgeting doesn't make money appear from out of thin air, dipshit. You think that everyone living paycheck to paycheck is being wasteful with their money?

Yes.

I highly suggest that you read Nickel & Dimed: On Not Getting By In America. Planning & budgeting, while helpful, only goes so far.

Until Americans drop the idea that owning microwaves, subscribing to cable television, using cell phones, etc. are basic necessities of life, well, yes, they will continue wasting their money.

JMak wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Planning/budgeting doesn't make money appear from out of thin air, dipshit. You think that everyone living paycheck to paycheck is being wasteful with their money?

Yes.

I highly suggest that you read Nickel & Dimed: On Not Getting By In America. Planning & budgeting, while helpful, only goes so far.

Until Americans drop the idea that owning microwaves, subscribing to cable television, using cell phones, etc. are basic necessities of life, well, yes, they will continue wasting their money.

Thanks for proving how out of touch you are.

You're dismissed.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Planning & budgeting, while helpful, only goes so far.

Works for me.

And I don't need to read a fucking book on how to not succeed in life, Dipshit in Seattle. Knock you fucking self out, corky.

The stimulus ain't workin'. Jam another hypo into his neck.

--Mrs. IRIE

Screw_Michigan wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:
And I don't need to read a fucking book on how to not succeed in life

You're right. All you needed was to be born into wealth. Congratulations.

Hmm...I worked at a hardwarestore every day and after school and on weekends from 11 to 15. Worked the hardware store some more from 16-18 along with a job at the Country Club cleaning clubs and picking up range balls after golf practice. I worked summer jobs in college every summer. One at Jason's Deli, one at the local golf course, and two back at the hardware store. Also spent time punching out gaskets my freshman year of college. I spent 3 semesters of college doing co-op at Texas Instruments earning more than I ever did at about $15/hour as a COBOL programmer.

I spent some cash growing up and saved as much cash from all these jobs as I could in addiiton to money i got from family/friends for birthdays and christmas gifs. When all was said and done, I had about 10k when I graduated from college at about 22 years of age that I had saved up the previous 11 years. In the past 11 years as a professional in my line of work, I have done pretty damn good.

Is it THAT inconceivable to you that my wife and I can't earn a damn fine 6 figures with my line of work and her being an accountant? Does it surprise you we started a college fund for our kids 6 months before we even got married which was four and a half years before we even had a kid? I have been saving money, month after month, for 8 years now for my kids' college so it isn't a burden to me (or them) when they are of age to attend. That fund is almost 30k now with contributions, dividends, interest, market gains (and losses), etc.

If I had a silver spoon in my ass I would not be putting away money like I am for college. I wouldn't be saving into my 401k like I am either. I've even started a fund for my daughter's wedding. Should I have another daughter, I will start saving for that too. And I damn sure would not have bought that $1,000,000 term life insurance policy for myself and wife at this early of an age. Right now, I'm putting away about $1600/year into this life insurance. And if I'm still living and breathing in 30 years, which I hope to be, all that will be refunded to me. It's called planning, dumbfuck.

IndyFrisco wrote:If I had a silver spoon in my ass I would not be putting away money like I am for college.

Maybe one day you will have enough money to go to college and find out just how stupid you really are.

Moving Sale wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:If I had a silver spoon in my ass I would not be putting away money like I am for college.

Maybe one day you will have enough money to go to college and find out just how stupid you really are.

He will then become an attorney and post on shit comments on internet message boards while being plungered daily.

Derron wrote:He will then become an attorney...

That would involve Law School and he hasn't even saved enough money for college yet.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Planning & budgeting, while helpful, only goes so far.

Works for me.

And I don't need to read a fucking book on how to not succeed in life, Dipshit in Seattle.

Thanks for proving how commited you are to being an ignorant silver spoon.

Moving Sale wrote:

Derron wrote:He will then become an attorney...

That would involve Law School and he hasn't even saved enough money for college yet.

Reading comprehension much? I think not. I'm saving for my kids' college, asswipe.