Jobs Are Still Bad

[giant]

I say this from recent experience with some open positions we have and some people I know trying to find work. The most obvious evidence is the quantity and quality of people apply for positions at my organization (Library). We recently had an entry level position open (~$25K/year), and we got ~70 resumes. 5-10 years ago we would have gotten 3. But, as has been the case for a few years now, every time a position opens we get resumes left and right, including multiple coworkers giving us multiple resumes from their family and friends.

Not only that, but a large percentage of applicants are way over qualified. I was shocked by the number of people applying for this entry level job with graduate degrees or coming from much higher level positions.

I knew this was a problem for the past couple years, but I had assumed it improved. I discussed it with our HR folks and they said there hasn't been a noticeable change in the past year and that it's not limited to the Library or the University.

[Outsider]

Yeah but we have tons of fast food jobs available. What are you complaining about?!

[Scott]

I think it's terrible that the libraries get huge tax breaks while they outsource american jobs. Someone needs to stop them!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
I say this from recent experience with some open positions we have and some people I know trying to find work. The most obvious evidence is the quantity and quality of people apply for positions at my organization (Library). We recently had an entry level position open (~$25K/year), and we got ~70 resumes. 5-10 years ago we would have gotten 3. But, as has been the case for a few years now, every time a position opens we get resumes left and right, including multiple coworkers giving us multiple resumes from their family and friends.

Not only that, but a large percentage of applicants are way over qualified. I was shocked by the number of people applying for this entry level job with graduate degrees or coming from much higher level positions.

I knew this was a problem for the past couple years, but I had assumed it improved. I discussed it with our HR folks and they said there hasn't been a noticeable change in the past year and that it's not limited to the Library or the University.

A quick question? How many of these resumes actually follow up with a call or some other sort of personal contact?

I ask this because I have seen several friends in the last couple years be able to use jobs sites to basically spam their resumes all over the place. Sites like Monster basically allow you to search using any sort of criteria you want and then send your resume off to anything that is even close.

You might be witnessing a technological change more than a job change.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
A quick question? How many of these resumes actually follow up with a call or some other sort of personal contact?

I ask this because I have seen several friends in the last couple years be able to use jobs sites to basically spam their resumes all over the place. Sites like Monster basically allow you to search using any sort of criteria you want and then send your resume off to anything that is even close.

You might be witnessing a technological change more than a job change.

Nick


I live in Oregon where the unemployment is among the worst in the nation. Uh no.:no:


Jobs are still bad. The unemployment part of the bad economy has had plenty of time to right itself. No excuses please.

[Scott]

La la la la la la la la la Bush bad, lost jobs la la la la la la la la not listening.

[Frank777]

Nonsense. He was at the U2 Press conference and seemed to be recovering well.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by jimmac
I live in Oregon where the unemployment is among the worst in the nation. Uh no.:no:


Jobs are still bad. The unemployment part of the bad economy has had plenty of time to right itself. No excuses please.

Pretend for a second that local law and policy can have an effect as well.

Nick

[dfiler]

Meanwhile, everyone can still claim the 'economy' is doing well.

Funny, how the 'economy' doesn't have much to do with the economic prosperity of the average american. Instead, the 'economy' is now merely an indicator of how well the wealthy are doing. :grumble:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by dfiler
Meanwhile, everyone can still claim the 'economy' is doing well.

Funny, how the 'economy' doesn't have much to do with the economic prosperity of the average american. Instead, the 'economy' is now merely an indicator of how well the wealthy are doing. :grumble:

Yes when they talk about things like record home ownership among everyone in the United States, I can see how that only applies to the "rich."

:rolleyes:
Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
A quick question? How many of these resumes actually follow up with a call or some other sort of personal contact?
A whole lot. Just for that one entry level position, for instance, we had multiple people coming in person beforehand to let us know they existed and even one of the people we interviewed flew in from penn (and he's the 2nd choice).

Note, too, that resumes don't even make it out of our HR offices easily (that's a long story for another day), so you can't just send a standardized cover letter and expect it to even get to us.

But monster.com (which was a big deal even in the late 90s when there were far less applicants) doesn't explain why so many people are dramatically overqualified. I've also talked to heads of other departments in the university about how we have had to develop complex cutting criteria just to sift through the resumes.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yes when they talk about things like record home ownership among everyone in the United States, I can see how that only applies to the "rich."
That's been a nice little factoid, but we all know that hiding within it is a potentially bad situation.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yes when they talk about things like record home ownership among everyone in the United States, I can see how that only applies to the "rich."

:rolleyes:
Nick Meanwhile, these homeowners are further in dept than ever before. These homeowners also are working more hours per week than ever before. Both parents are increasingly likely to be working multiple part time jobs that don't provide health bennefits.

Homeownership has risen, but mostly due to artificially low interest rates. Thus, the rise isn't an indication of our 'economy' doing well but rather the feds keeping rates low because the economy is doing badly.

Check out this link:
http://www.danter.com/statistics/homeown.htm

You'll see that ownership is up by just a few percentage points.

Meanwhile...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
That's been a nice little factoid, but we all know that hiding within it is a potentially bad situation.

I don't consider it bad at all.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by dfiler
Meanwhile, these homeowners are further in dept than ever before. These homeowners also are working more hours per week than ever before. Both parents are increasingly likely to be working multiple part time jobs that don't provide health bennefits.

Homeownership has risen, but mostly due to artificially low interest rates. Thus, the rise isn't an indication of our 'economy' doing well but rather the feds keeping rates low because the economy is doing badly.

Check out this link:
http://www.danter.com/statistics/homeown.htm

You'll see that ownership is up by just a few percentage points.

Meanwhile...

Yes, try moving the unemployment rate up by "just a few percentage points" and see if no one cares. How about change the rate of growth for the economy "just a few percentage points" in either direction and look at the results.

:rolleyes:

A few percentage points is a very big deal when you are talking about almost three hundred million people. I suppose you must be a Bush supporter. I mean that tax cut for the "rich" dropped the top rate "just a few percentage points."

:lol:
Nick

[Scott]

Every silver lining has a dark clowd.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't consider it bad at all.
And that's why you are careless and make mistakes.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yes, try moving the unemployment rate up by "just a few percentage points" and see if no one cares. How about change the rate of growth for the economy "just a few percentage points" in either direction and look at the results.

:rolleyes:

A few percentage points is a very big deal when you are talking about almost three hundred million people. I suppose you must be a Bush supporter. I mean that tax cut for the "rich" dropped the top rate "just a few percentage points."

:lol:
Nick I don't know what you're arguing against with this Nick.

Nobody here is claiming that homeownership is meaningless.

[Aquatic]

Nonsense. He was at the U2 Press conference and seemed to be recovering well. :lol:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
And that's why you are careless and make mistakes.

Care to point out my mistakes? Go ahead, put them on display for all to see. You must know about them since you claim to be informed not only about all my investments, but also the good versus bad ones.

Why don't you quote my networth for me while you are at it...

:lol: :lol:
Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Care to point out my mistakes?
We see you make mistakes in just about every post.

But WRT to this, looking at just about any economic situation and saying you 'don't consider it bad at all' is just asking for trouble. dfiler pointed out some of the issues that make the current situation risky. There are others, like the fact that housing prices are really inflated. There's absolutely nothing certain about the housing situation, and we are all taking risks.

One thing your responses in another thread made clear, however, was that you didn't anticipate the tremendous growth of at least one major industry that benefitted from the war. It's apparent that one of the reasons was likely a problem that afflicts many people who apparently hold opinions shaped by political ideologies: the inability to recognize real motives of economic movers because doing so would undermine parts of the ideologically-based belief system.

And this is what we are seeing here. Rather than dealing with the situation in a realistic manner, you've offered a series of excuses, much in the way many bush supporters did with qaqaa. The problem here, however, is that there is no justification for stripping all of the externalities off of something like a homeownership statistic when it's an issue the people you are talking to have to deal with in their own lives in the real world.

[Scott]

giant is correct. We are a hair’s breath away from a complete collapse. Soon there will be riots in the streets and no one but Bush is to blame. That's the only legitimate explanation. You'd have be a blind Bush zealot to think things are not on the edge of total disaster.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Scott
giant is correct. We are a hair’s breath away from a complete collapse. Soon there will be riots in the streets and no one but Bush is to blame. That's the only legitimate explanation. You'd have be a blind Bush zealot to think things are not on the edge of total disaster. A bit off topic but I'll bite. (The following comments aren't economically focused.)

There are already are riots in the streets... just not american streets.

Nearly the entire world thinks we're already experiencing total disaster. A superpower has invaded and occupied another country against the urgings of the rest of the globe. Rightfully, they place the blame for the current state of affairs on the current administration.

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
giant is correct. We are a hair’s breath away from a complete collapse.
Well, that's not what I'm saying at all, but none of us expect any honesty out of you anyway.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
giant is correct. We are a hair’s breath away from a complete collapse. Soon there will be riots in the streets and no one but Bush is to blame. That's the only legitimate explanation. You'd have be a blind Bush zealot to think things are not on the edge of total disaster.

He thinks he's being sarcastic. But actually he's pretty much summed it up. Well, maybe not riots, but increased poverty, increased homelessness, higher crime rates and lower standards of living. And it is Bush's fault. And Reagan.

[Stoo]

Soon there will be riots in the streets and no one but Bush is to blame.

Only if he wins: Will the left riot when Bush Wins?? (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47614).

[bunge]

Has anyone here seen MASKED & ANONYMOUS? I highly recommend it.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yes when they talk about things like record home ownership among everyone in the United States, I can see how that only applies to the "rich."

:rolleyes:
Nick

In California it does.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
We see you make mistakes in just about every post.


So that would be a "no" on being able to outline my mistakes. Nice to see you can still turn it into a personal insult though since you have no backing.

But WRT to this, looking at just about any economic situation and saying you 'don't consider it bad at all' is just asking for trouble. dfiler pointed out some of the issues that make the current situation risky. There are others, like the fact that housing prices are really inflated. There's absolutely nothing certain about the housing situation, and we are all taking risks.

So that would be a "no" on being able to point out my mistakes, but now I'm just "asking for trouble.":lol:

We are not "all" taking risks. There are some of us who are not heavily leveraged. Some of us have excellent cashflow and will scoop up this discounted property from people who bid them too high while stupidly speculating. Plus you do realize that when people are less likely to buy a house, they become more likely to rent. That makes my rents go higher which again, improves my cashflow.

In fact for me, the party is just getting ready to begin. These are the lean times for rents. The disconnect between rents and house payments has grown too large. People will commit to a higher than necessary house payments instead of lower rents because they believe they will get some sort of insane appreciation. They will buy the house that rents at $1200 a month for $1800 a month in house payments because they think they are going to get 20% appreciation on it.

The second they decide they aren't getting the appreciation, a whole lot of them are going to want that $1200 house. So many in fact that it will easily become a $1300-1350 house. Rents and house payments will come back closer together. The house price will depreciate enough to knock the house payment back down to say $1500-1550.

Silly man, I'm a landlord. Rents have been DEPRESSED during record home ownership. The second people stop buying, they still need a place to live and when they won't buy, they RENT. When they walk away from $1800 a month, $1350 for the exact same property looks like a steal. Property appreciation is nice for my net-worth but it isn't liquid. I don't get to spend it month to month. I especially don't get to spend it on houses that could be 30% lower in price on a foreclosure.

If/When housing prices drop 30%, I'll be the happiest man in this forum.

One thing your responses in another thread made clear, however, was that you didn't anticipate the tremendous growth of at least one major industry that benefitted from the war. It's apparent that one of the reasons was likely a problem that afflicts many people who apparently hold opinions shaped by political ideologies: the inability to recognize real motives of economic movers because doing so would undermine parts of the ideologically-based belief system.

Translated. You know nothing about my finances, and you don't like my political beliefs, so obviously I'm going to end up bad.

I love the total lack of hard information in your posts. You let others fill it in for you and then later claim you weren't saying what they filled in for you. It is hilarous to watch.

And this is what we are seeing here. Rather than dealing with the situation in a realistic manner, you've offered a series of excuses, much in the way many bush supporters did with qaqaa. The problem here, however, is that there is no justification for stripping all of the externalities off of something like a homeownership statistic when it's an issue the people you are talking to have to deal with in their own lives in the real world.

Hahahahaha... God. I need to wipe the tears away. Yes, us Bush supporters have stripped away all the externalities. We've ignored things like the 5.4% growth rate. The actual growth of the economy. The slight raise in interest rates to offset an economy that might actually risk overheating because it is so strong.

Thanks for the laugh. I'll continue to do so, all the way to the bank.

Thanks also for the lack of hard information, the continual insinuation and insults that pass for information in your posts and for discrediting yourself better than I could.

Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
We've ignored things like the 5.4% growth rate. The actual growth of the economy.
GDP? It's already slowed down to ~3 then 3.7 since the beginning of the year and it's driven by consumer debt and gov't spending.

So you want a mistake pointed out there your are ^^. Like I said, you make mistakes in just about every post. It's not a insult, unless you find the truth insulting.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
GDP? It's already slowed down to ~3 then 3.7 since the beginning of the year and it's driven by consumer debt and gov't spending.

So you want a mistake pointed out there your are ^^. Like I said, you make mistakes in just about every post. It's not a insult, unless you find the truth insulting.

Do you also find it insulting to mention that we've had two interest rates hike this year to help bring about part of that slowed growth? We also have $50 oil which has knocked a bit of growth off. Neither of those are policies the president can directly control. Also nothing is terrible about 3-4% growth. I don't know what you are expecting, but that is certainly a reasonable range.

Nick

[giant]

And a big crimp affecting oil prices, among many other big crimps, has been supply problems because of ongoing conflicts in the ME. Hopefully someone can fix Iraq enough to keep our companies there. Oh, wait. You don't believe in that. :rolleyes: Not to mention that we need to be developing alternative energy sources and that this oil rise has most people expecting GDP growth to slow over the next couple of years (though, barring any more stupid bush admin moves, it should stay in the 3% range).

One of the major issues with future oil prices is the potential for a future bush admin to attack Iran, not to mention Bush's unwillingness to tap the strategic reserves.

So, yeah, it does have a lot to do with whether we have Kerry or Bush in the White House for the next 4 years.

Originally posted by trumptman
Neither of those are policies the president can directly control.
In other words, you are wrong here, meaning this is the second post in a row where you made a mistake.

Let's rehash:

1. GDP growth is has been is 3.7% and expected to slow not "5.4%" as you claimed.
2. Presidential policies do very much affect oil prices.

So that would be a definite yes on being able to outline your mistakes.

[giant]

BTW, I decided to read the rest of your post and couldn't help but notice how interesting it was that you went from claiming that home ownership as an indicator of economic success to discussing how you believe you've positioned yourself for an inevitable drop in home ownership, a decline due to exactly what dfiler and I pointed out. p^~p much?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
Blah Blah Blah...

In other words, you are wrong here, meaning this is the second post in a row where you made a mistake.

Let's rehash:

1. GDP growth is has been is 3.7% and expected to slow not "5.4%" as you claimed.
2. Presidential policies do very much affect oil prices.

So that would be a definite yes on being able to outline your mistakes.

You did catch a typo. If you know current financial stats you should have known it was a type though rather than wasting all that time on it.

Unemployment rate is 5.4%. I didn't mean to say growth rate there. The fact that I mentioned them twice should have tipped you off. I type too fast to sometimes.

That dealt with, no one believes 3.7% growth is bad. You are also welcome to mention which presidential policies you believe are affecting the oil prices. I've read that production is at full tilt and that China is manipulating the prices via some hording. Toss in your two cents there.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
BTW, I decided to read the rest of your post and couldn't help but notice how interesting it was that you went from claiming that home ownership as an indicator of economic success to discussing how you believe you've positioned yourself for an inevitable drop in home ownership, a decline due to exactly what dfiler and I pointed out. p^~p much?

giant, for someone who claims not to hate it when people can't understand "complicated" things, you sure seem to play dumb a lot.

Record home ownership can still occur even with price declines. Record stock ownership has still occurred even while we have ridden out a bubble. No one would suggest that middle class folks having enough money to invest in stocks or real estate is a sign of financial hardship, regardless of whether they get a short term loss or hold for the long term gain. They would never even suggest that having enough money to invest and choosing not to invest out of fear of financial risk is a hardship.

You and dfler suggested that the market could be in a bubble and that we "all" were at risk as a result. I showed you how I am not at risk. If the market goes up or down, I benefit. Smart financial planning yields gains no matter what kind of market you are in. It simply changes what you do, but doesn't change the fact that you can still make money. Finally lack of home price appreciation doesn't even mean people will have financial hard times. It simply means they might put their money somewhere else like stocks where they hope for a better return. None of this is hard to understand. I really don't get why you play coy on it.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Pretend for a second that local law and policy can have an effect as well.

Nick


I said " No excuses please ".

It's been way too long since the job market has been really good for those to work.


:no:

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
That dealt with, no one believes 3.7% growth is bad.

Please adjust that growth percentage for the mammoth debt we now have. It's probably about a -47.2% growth rate.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
La la la la la la la la la Bush bad, lost jobs la la la la la la la la not listening.


In a nutshell this is at the heart of the problem.



OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't consider it bad at all.

Nick


I'm sure!:rolleyes:

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
You did catch a typo. If you know current financial stats you should have known it was a type though rather than wasting all that time on it.

Unemployment rate is 5.4%. I didn't mean to say growth rate there. The fact that I mentioned them twice should have tipped you off. I type too fast to sometimes.
COULD YOU POSSIBLY LIE MORE OBVIOUSLY?
Originally posted by trumptman and now he's flat out lying about it
We've ignored things like the 5.4% growth rate. The actual growth of the economy. The slight raise in interest rates to offset an economy that might actually risk overheating because it is so strong.
You didn't mean to say growth rate? A 3 sentence long typo? Absolutely, positively pathetic. :no:

[tonton]

Originally posted by giant
COULD YOU POSSIBLY LIE MORE OBVIOUSLY?

You didn't mean to say growth rate? A 3 sentence long typo? Absolutely, positively pathetic. :no:

I don't think it was a typo, but it was a brain fart. He wasn't trying to lie with the 5.4 figure. He just mixed his figures up because he was careless. Thank God he's not a journalist. But I would be afraid to witness some of the "facts" he must "casually" tell his students.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
COULD YOU POSSIBLY LIE MORE OBVIOUSLY?

You didn't mean to say growth rate? A 3 sentence long typo? Absolutely, positively pathetic. :no:

It's not three sentences long. It is also easy to see and believe because there is no time in recent memory that the economy has grown at 5.4% whereas they unemployment rate this month just happens to be... 5.4%.

Try it in there and see if it makes sense...

We've ignored things like the 5.4% unemployment rate. The actual growth of the economy. The slight raise in interest rates to offset an economy that might actually risk overheating because it is so strong.

I'm pointing out three ignored factors besides the housing market that we already discussed.

Think whatever you want though. I know my brain sometimes whips along faster than my fingers. When I read something of yours in another thread that was an incomprehensible mishmash, I asked you to simply restate it. I didn't get all weird and pissed off like you are here.

But to each their own I suppose...

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
I don't think it was a typo, but it was a brain fart. He wasn't trying to lie with the 5.4 figure. He just mixed his figures up because he was careless. Thank God he's not a journalist. But I would be afraid to witness some of the "facts" he must "casually" tell his students.

Yep, I may be careless, but you're just plain stupid.

Oh and of course we don't have to worry about you witnessing what would happen with students because they wouldn't let someone like you within a mile of the building.

Nick

[giant]

How do you live with yourself lying so openly like that? Even after your obvious, crystal clear lie is pointed out you continue to lie about it.

Is even a minute amount of honesty too much to ask from you?

Note, too, that this whole line of conversation started with:
Originally posted by giant
And that's why you are careless and make mistakes.
to which you responded
Originally posted by trumptman
Care to point out my mistakes? Go ahead, put them on display for all to see...So that would be a "no" on being able to outline my mistakes. Nice to see you can still turn it into a personal insult though since you have no backing.
Actually, nick, it's a definite YES on being able to not only outline your mistakes, but also your subsequent lies about them.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
How do you live with yourself lying so openly like that? Even after your obvious, crystal clear lie is pointed out you continue to lie about it.

Is even a minute amount of honesty too much to ask from you?

Note, too, that this whole line of conversation started with:

to which you responded

Actually, nick, it's a definite YES on being able to not only outline your mistakes, but also your subsequent lies about them.

Giant anyone with half a brain can see that the current unemployment rate is 5.4% and that my fingers got ahead of themselves. It is even easier to understand this since the next sentence does mention growth.

But have your little fun. Tuesday is here. I'm going to vote. The UNEMLOYMENT RATE, which is what this thread still happens to be about is still 5.4% nationwide and will get even better when the latest report is released in three days or so.

Delude yourself all you want.

Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Giant anyone with half a brain can see that the current unemployment rate is 5.4% and that my fingers got ahead of themselves. It is even easier to understand this since the next sentence does mention growth.
Why in the world would you so openly continue to lie about something that is right in front of everyone?
Originally posted by trumptman and now he's STILL flat out lying about it
We've ignored things like the 5.4% growth rate. The actual growth of the economy. The slight raise in interest rates to offset an economy that might actually risk overheating because it is so strong.
:no:

[dfiler]

Originally posted by trumptman
Delude yourself all you want.Nick, even if I knew nothing of your political views, your debating etiquette is enough to make me despise you.

I have the utmost respect for people who are willing to admit their own mistakes. The smartest people I’ve ever met are, ironically, also those who admit their mistakes. We’re talking Nobel Prize winners. I’ve seen a handful of them speak and all of them were introspective, the first to point out their own errors.

You made mistakes when composing your thoughts for posting to this board. I do it all the time. Everybody does. The question is, are you willing to admit to this incredibly minor error? Nobody would think less of you for doing so. But instead, you claim that it is the reader’s mistake for not recognizing a three sentence long typo.

If you are so unwilling to admit this casual error, why should we trust your stances on significant issues? Admitting to mistaken judgment about more important issues would certainly be more difficult.

Everyone makes mistakes but you’re unwilling to even admit to the most trivial of errors. Now I see that you have no hope of ever changing your views on things like the war in Iraq. You’d better hope your initial judgments are always correct, otherwise you’ll forever hold incorrect views.

I make mistakes. Now see, wasn’t that easy?
Now I’m free to re-analyze my political stances when presented with new evidence.

You should strive for the same. :D

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
The actual growth of the economy.

Would you please adjust the 'growth' of the economy for the debt Bush has created.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by dfiler
Nick, even if I knew nothing of your political views, your debating etiquette is enough to make me despise you.

I have the utmost respect for people who are willing to admit their own mistakes. The smartest people I’ve ever met are, ironically, also those who admit their mistakes. We’re talking Nobel Prize winners. I’ve seen a handful of them speak and all of them were introspective, the first to point out their own errors.

You made mistakes when composing your thoughts for posting to this board. I do it all the time. Everybody does. The question is, are you willing to admit to this incredibly minor error? Nobody would think less of you for doing so. But instead, you claim that it is the reader’s mistake for not recognizing a three sentence long typo.

If you are so unwilling to admit this casual error, why should we trust your stances on significant issues? Admitting to mistaken judgment about more important issues would certainly be more difficult.

Everyone makes mistakes but you’re unwilling to even admit to the most trivial of errors. Now I see that you have no hope of ever changing your views on things like the war in Iraq. You’d better hope your initial judgments are always correct, otherwise you’ll forever hold incorrect views.

I make mistakes. Now see, wasn’t that easy?
Now I’m free to re-analyze my political stances when presented with new evidence.

You should strive for the same. :D

dfiler, it is the very first thing I did. giant even quoted it.

Here is what I posted and what giant even quoted.

You did catch a typo. If you know current financial stats you should have known it was a type though rather than wasting all that time on it.

Note the typo while correcting a typo.:lol: (type vs typo)

Giant and Ton get what they deserve with regard to my posting because they attempt to turn a typo into a character flaw. I've said several times that I do not and did not believe the growth rate to be 5.4%. That is the unemployment rate. Sure jobs and the unemployment rate happen to be what the thread is about, but giant and ton would rather play "gotcha" because their arguments, that a 5.4% unemployment rate, (and dropping lower) 3.7% economic growth (even with trade deficits and $50 oil or it would be higher) is a terrible economy.

Jimmac maintains that his state has one of the highest rates and that it is directly the fault of Bush. He can believe whatever he wants though. It isn't a coincidence that where liberal policies are strongest, employment is weakest.

So in summary, I gladly admit my typos and the mistakes associated with them. That however doesn't mean I am a liar or intentionally attempting to mislead people which is what giant claims.

Nick

[dfiler]

Originally posted by trumptman
You did catch a typo. If you know current financial stats you should have known it was a type though rather than wasting all that time on it.

Unemployment rate is 5.4%. I didn't mean to say growth rate there. The fact that I mentioned them twice should have tipped you off. I type too fast to sometimes.
'You did catch a typo.'
'you chould have know it was a type though rather than wasting alll that time'
'should have tipped you off'
'I type too fast to sometimes'

All of these statements are indicative of a personality unwilling to admit error. It would have been preferable to say 'Oops, I was wrong. I meant to say such and such'

Instead, you spend time trying to convince people that the mistake was somehow the reader's fault. This is coupled with an assertion that you only mistyped a few letters rather than thought incorrect thoughts.

Once again, I'm harping on a personality trait that makes me discard all of your arguments. Why bother discussing real issues when a person won't fess up to the simplest of errors.

If you're wondering how you got to be the brunt of such harsh analysis... It might have something to do with this post of yours.Originally posted by trumptman
Care to point out my mistakes? Go ahead, put them on display for all to see. [snip]
:lol: :lol:
Nick

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yep, I may be careless, but you're just plain stupid.

Oh and of course we don't have to worry about you witnessing what would happen with students because they wouldn't let someone like you within a mile of the building.

Nick

Gee. What a mature remark. :rolleyes:

By the way, I taught primary school last year (left only because I didn't particularly like it), and had a part-time stint at a high-school teaching poetry and speech (I enjoyed that and will definitely do it again).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by dfiler
'You did catch a typo.'
'you chould have know it was a type though rather than wasting alll that time'
'should have tipped you off'
'I type too fast to sometimes'

All of these statements are indicative of a personality unwilling to admit error. It would have been preferable to say 'Oops, I was wrong. I meant to say such and such'

Instead, you spend time trying to convince people that the mistake was somehow the reader's fault. This is coupled with an assertion that you only mistyped a few letters rather than thought incorrect thoughts.

Once again, I'm harping on a personality trait that makes me discard all of your arguments. Why bother discussing real issues when a person won't fess up to the simplest of errors.

If you're wondering how you got to be the brunt of such harsh analysis... It might have something to do with this post of yours.

Thanks freud. You can join giant on the list of people who swear they can tell everything about someone from a couple posts.

Or perhaps that, along with your entire analysis of me can join your little list of mistakes.

Let me weigh these two on the cosmic scale...

typed growth instead of unemployment vs.... two parties who believe they can deduce everything about someone from a couple post....

Yep, I know which side tilts down as most wrong and delusional.

Enjoy yourself.

Nick

[dfiler]

Everything about you?

Only thing I'm claiming is that your behavior is indicative of someone unwilling to critically anazlyze their own assertions and to admit errors when errors are made.

At this point, I could care less whether you're a bush or kerry man.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by dfiler
Everything about you?

Only thing I'm claiming is that your behavior is indicative of someone unwilling to critically anazlyze their own assertions and to admit errors when errors are made.

At this point, I could care less whether you're a bush or kerry man.

So you believe you can tell major attributes about a person based off some postings in a forum?

The point here is to discuss ideals. Even attempting to personalize or discuss personal items in anyway is the big mistake on your part. Don't worry because it is an easy mistake to make around giant. He continually attacks the messenger because he can't deal with the message.

Your big mistake, which you haven't admitted to yet by the way, is believing you can discern personal traits about someone based off a forum post.

Heck I could be a 16 year old girl for all you know. That is why people should stick to ideals and avoid personal attacks.

Your mistake...

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
So you believe you can tell major attributes about a person based off some postings in a forum?

We can just tell when someone is being a dick, that's all.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by trumptman
So you believe you can tell major attributes about a person based off some postings in a forum?I believe that, when weighing an argument, the presentor's critical thinking credentials are of interest.

I believe that reading posts is a reasonable to way to form an opinion about the content of those posts. Trends in a particular author's work can be quite enlightening.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
We can just tell when someone is being a dick, that's all.

Of course you can Richard.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Giant anyone with half a brain can see that the current unemployment rate is 5.4% and that my fingers got ahead of themselves. It is even easier to understand this since the next sentence does mention growth.

But have your little fun. Tuesday is here. I'm going to vote. The UNEMLOYMENT RATE, which is what this thread still happens to be about is still 5.4% nationwide and will get even better when the latest report is released in three days or so.

Delude yourself all you want.

Nick


Hey! There are states that are still bad like mine and even Washington D.C.



State Unemployment Rate
Hawaii 2.9%
South Dakota 3.2%
North Dakota 3.3%
Vermont 3.4%
Virginia 3.5%
Delaware 3.6%
Nebraska 3.6%
New Hampshire 3.7%
Wyoming 3.7%
Nevada 4.9%
Oklahoma 4.1%
Georgia 4.2%
Maryland 4.3%
Arizona 4.4%
Florida 4.5%
Iowa 4.5%
Maine 4.5%
Connecticut 4.6%
Kansas 4.8%
Minnesota 4.8%
Montana 4.8%
New Jersey 4.8%
Utah 4.8%
Wisconsin 4.8%
Tennessee 4.9%
Idaho 5.0%
Louisiana 5.0%
North Carolina 5.0%
Colorado 5.1%
Indiana 5.1%
Kentucky 5.1%
U.S. Average (as of August) 5.4%
Arkansas 5.4%
Massachusetts 5.4%
New Mexico 5.4%
Missouri 5.5%
Rhode Island 5.5%
West Virginia 5.5%
New York 5.6%
Pennsylvania 5.6%
Texas 5.7%
California 5.8%
Mississippi 5.9%
Alabama 6.0%
Illinois 6.1%
Washington 6.2%
Ohio 6.3%
South Carolina 6.4%
Michigan 6.7%
Oregon 7.4%
District of Columbia 7.5%
Alaska 7.6%


Notice that there are alot that are not the average so screw the average!


And this was in August.


Also there things like this.......

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news/economy/jobless_challenger/index.htm




THE ECONOMY: SEVEN INDICATORS

The indicator | what it's telling us | next update
Consumer Confidence | Weak Growth | November 30
Retail sales | Rebounding Growth | November 12
Leading Economic Indicators | Weak Growth | November 18
Manufacturing Activity (ISM) | Slowing Growth | December 1
Industrial Production | Iffy Growth | November 17
Jobs Growth | Growth in Question | November 5
Inflation (CPI) | No Inflation Threat | November 16


Sure Trumpy sure!













:no: